Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN MOTHER

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address as follows:

I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address on the occasion of the eightieth birthday of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

I am deeply moved by this expression of your great pleasure on this joyful occasion and I welcome your intention to send a message to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother offering your cordial congratulations and expressing your warmest desire for her long continuing health and happiness.

MESSAGES FROM THE COUNCIL OF STATE

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Canada) (No. 2) Order 1980, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order 1980, the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (New Zealand) Order 1980, and the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Sweden) Order 1980, be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Address praying that the ratification by the Government of Japan of the Protocol set out in the schedule to the draft order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Japan) Order 1980, which draft was laid before your House, an order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL

SCOTTISH WIDOWS' FUND AND LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

Order for Third reading read.

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (No. 2) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

ALEXANDRA PARK AND PALACE BILL [Lords]

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 28 October 1980.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in the House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater London Council (General Powers) (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in the House in the present Session;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill


Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration had been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

Industrial Growth Forecasts

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has had from the Confederation of British Industry on the growth prospects of British industry in the next two years.

The Secretary of State for Industry (Sir Keith Joseph): I met officials of the CBI on 24 July to discuss the economic prospect. The CBI reiterated its support for the Government's economic policies, but also made plain to me its concern over the effect of high interest rates and a high exchange rate on the prospects for industry and therefore its desire that the Government, and particularly the local authorities, should press on with reducing their spending and borrowing.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since then more and more messages have been coming in from British industry of closures, lay-offs and short-time working? Is it not therefore necessary to tell the Treasury that if it maintains the high bank rate for too long—I accept that it has been necessary to keep the high rate for a time to reduce inflation—there is a danger of overkill? If too many businesses go down, arising from a bombed-out situation, the Government will find themselves—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is arguing a case. He has asked two supplementary questions.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman mind if his first two supplementary questions are answered?

Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government will have to make greater efforts and spend more money to help not only large, but small, businesses?

Sir K. Joseph: The message that my hon. Friend wants to reinforce is surely one not only for the Treasury but for all Government Departments, all local


authorities and the whole of the public sector. The bulk of industry's problems are made much worse by the public sector's overspending.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many private representations he has received from big business men? Do they really support the policy of deliberately worsening the slump to discipline the unions, to reduce inflation and to weed out the inefficient? That seems incredible to me.

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has his assumptions wrong. In general, private business is behind the Government's policy, though it is desperately anxious that the Government should secure the lowering of inflation and interest rates, which can come only from reduced public sector, including Government, spending.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that interest rates would not now be so high if the public sector were not so dependent upon the amount of borrowing that it has to do? Secondly, does he accept that the private sector of industry would be a great deal better off if it had not paid so much in wages over the past two years?

Sir K. Joseph: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. John Silkin: I noticed that the Secretary of State did not once refer to growth prospects in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis). I understand why he did not do so. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the Financial Times survey, reported today, in which the bulk of British industrialists claim that it is not high wages that are causing their present difficulties, but lack of demand? As this lack of demand is the direct result of Government deflationary activity, is it not about time that we had another U-turn?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The lack of demand reflects a lack of competitiveness—

Mr. Silkin: Exactly.

Sir K. Joseph: —because while imports are still pouring in there is a huge potential demand which British business is not able to meet because its products

and prices do not satisfy our constituents in our high streets.

Paper Industry

Mr. Moate: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with representatives of the paper industry.

Sir Keith Joseph: I met representatives from the paper industry on 21 July, when we discussed the industry's situation.

Mr. Moate: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we face the threat of the virtual extinction of the manufacturing of news print in Britain? Does he accept that that has arisen despite good labour relations and considerable improvements in productivity? What steps are the Government taking, or what steps can they take, to ease the threat?

Sir K. Joseph: I accept that the industry faces difficult pressures. I accept, too, that there are a limited number of possibilities, which are now being discussed between the Government and the industry.

Mr. Freud: Is the Secretary of State aware that about 60,000 jobs in the paper and cardboard industry are in jeopardy, principally because of the Government's insistence on raising the price of energy? Is he aware also that if that continues there is no way in which our industry will be competitive vis-á-vis its overseas competitors?

Sir K. Joseph: It is true that energy prices throughout the developed world are making it difficult for industry. That is one of the factors that it is raising with us.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is not the increasing cost of energy one of the greatest burdens from which the paper and board industry is suddenly suffering? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the enormous increase in energy prices is breaking the camel's back?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. and learned Friend will know that energy prices are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. The industry is arguing strongly that energy prices are damaging it.

Mr. John Evans: Does the Secretary of State accept that British industry is


paying much higher energy costs than its foreign competitors? Does he agree that what is needed, if the industry is to survive, is Government action at least to put it on a par with its competitors? Will he take the opportunity to announce that under section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 he is prepared to give assistance to Bowaters' Ellesmere Port plant to save 1,500 jobs?

Sir K. Joseph: I must not assume the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy. There might be an argument whether, and if so the degree to which, the industry is paying more than its competitors. I have told the House that Bowaters and the industry are having discussions with the Government.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Industry by what amount the taxpayer has subsidised the British Steel Corporation in the last 10 years; and how much this works out per household and person.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): Over the 10 years to the end of March 1980, the Government have provided or guaranteed the British Steel Corporation about £4,700 million in loans and advances of capital to finance its capital investment, working capital, revenue deficits and other cash requirements. This is equivalent to £ 235 per household and £85 per person in the United Kingdom. No dividend on public dividend capital has been paid since 1974 –75. Interest on loan capital has been paid at a decreasing level in the past two years—since April 1978—because of the issue of interest-free finance under section 18 (1) of the Iron and Steel Act 1975.

Mr. Chapman: As taxpayers have had to bear a considerable burden in the past decade, does my hon. Friend think it not unreasonable that taxpayers should now try to get an assurance from the Government that henceforth subsidies for the corporation will be confined to investment in sound capital projects, rather than merely to prop up the industry at the same manpower level, which by any token is a relatively high-wage low-productivity industry?

Mr. Marshall: I am sure that the chairman of the corporation will have taken on board the force of my hon. Friend's comment. We look forward with great interest to receiving, and await urgently, the chairman's proposals.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the Minister agree that over the years the industry has been badly managed? Is it not a fact that a steel industry is vital and basic to a modern industrialised nation? Does the hon. Gentleman agree also that other countries have been more successful in disguising their subsidies—for example, the West German coking coal subsidy? Is the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) suggesting that we should turn our steel workers in South Wales into hotel porters and their wives into domestic servants in the South-East of England?

Mr. Marshall: I shall attempt to answer two out of the four supplementary questions put to me. The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that the West German subsidy is designed to give coal a price that is equivalent to the world price. The corporation is currently importing steel at world prices to balance its load. As one who has known the industry for many years I recognise that there are problems, but the hon. Gentleman's condemnation of management is too sweeping and does not help the argument.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to Ministers to answer one supplementary question only, because hon. Members are entitled to ask only one.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best service that could be done to the taxpayer and to the employees of BSC would be to sell the profitable bits of the corporation to the private sector?

Mr. Marshall: Again, a question has been raised that must be very much in the mind of the chairman of the BSC in relation to his proposals. Such arguments cannot be taken in isolation at Question Time.

Mr. Hooley: How much harder would all those households have had to work if we had had to import the £30 billion of steel that the BSC has produced over the past 10 years?

Mr. Marshall: As the hon. Gentleman knows, he has posed a question that it is not possible to answer. Substantial amounts of money are involved and the British taxpayer has shown great faith in the industry. I support the BSC, but it must become profitable, not only in the interest of the industry, but in the interest of the many steel-consuming industries, on which this country's wealth essentially depends.

Mr. John Silkin: Does the Minister agree that the existence of a British bulk steel industry has been of enormous value to British industry during the past 10 years? If so, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to tell his 4 million-dollar man that British bulk steel will not best be preserved by closing down steel mills in South Wales?

Mr. Marshall: I support the general proposition that this is a vital industry on which the whole of our industrial infrastructure depends. However, it must be competitive, not just in its own interests, but for the reasons that I outlined earlier.

Northern Region

Mr Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will take steps to encourage the development of new industry in the Northern region.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): Much of the Northern region already qualifies for the highest rates of regional and other industrial assistance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware that last Friday, 1 August, will be known as "black Friday" in the history of the Northern region, because the Government's new policy on downgrading much of the Northern region was implemented on that day? What percentage will unemployment have to reach before the Department of Industry and its Ministers consider re-establishing the special development area status that exists in much of the Northern region?

Mr. Mitchell: Of the Northern region, 88 per cent. is to remain an assisted area. As regards the precise percentages, the hon. gentleman will know that we are guided by the Industry Act and by the criteria that it sets out. They include a series

of factors other than the level of unemployment.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that those who live in the Northern region and in other depressed regions can take comfort from the fact that the Government have recently made several decisions, such as investment in Inmos and investment through the NEB, in biotechnology, and have shown that they are not bound by the dogmatism of which the Opposition accuse them? The Government have shown that they are willing to intervene and to help the regions where it is felt appropriate.

Mr. Mitchell: We shall take into account my hon. Friend's remarks. He will appreciate that the role of the NEB is to help those areas in which sufficient incentives have not yet been created for the private market system to finance modern technological development on its own. In due course we hope to create such circumstances.

Mr. Urwin: Does the Minister appreciate that his answer will give no satisfaction and bring no joy to the many thousands of unemployed in the Northern region? Has not the time come for the Secretary of State to make a decision about the establishment of the Northern Development Agency? Together with his team of Ministers, will the Secretary of State encourage the Treasury to reduce the minimum lending rate, in order to assist small industries in the Northern region and other development areas.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall pick one of those questions for reply, in accordance with your suggestion, Mr. Speaker. We are considering the arguments put forward about the Northern Development Agency.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Does the Minister stick by the damned nonsense that he trotted out on Tyne Tees television—

Mr. Speaker: Order. However strongly hon. Members may feel, there is no need to use anything other than parliamentary language.

Mr. Brown: If the word "damned" offends you. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I apologise. Does the Minister stick by the arrant nonsense that he trotted out on Tyne Tees television, to the effect that the


only way of getting new industries into the area was for redundant workers to spend their redundancy payments on opening new businesses?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention to what I said on that television programme he would have realised that I did not say that that was the only way of doing it. I said that there were parallels between those who used their post-war credits to start businesses that are now quite substantial and the opportunities for redundancy pay to be taken collectively by groups of workers, in some cases, to create new businesses and jobs. It is not a panacea, and I did not suggest that it was.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will consider initiating new steps to assist manufacturing industry.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government's policies of cutting public spending, reducing inflation, promoting enterprise, fostering small business, and restraining the excessive claims of the public sector, will create a climate in which industry can prosper. Financial assistance to industry also has a part to play, but industrial success depends on action by management and work force to improve competitiveness.

Mr. Winnick: That reply comes from fantasy land. In view of the CBI's latest industrial survey, does not all the evidence point to a deepening recession, mounting unemployment and many closures all over the country? Given that, is it surprising that the Secretary of State for Industry is viewed as the grave digger of British industry and of British jobs?

Sir K. Joseph: My reply did not come from fantasy land. It is true that the prospect is one of deeping recession, which in turn reflects world recession, oil price increases and our own sustained decline in competitiveness in recent decades. It is fantasy on the part of Opposition Members to ignore that crucial factor, which is within our control.

Mr. John Patten: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if, when circumstances allow, his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to

alleviate or abate the employers' national insurance surcharge—which was so unwisely laid on British industry by the previous Labour Government—that might help British industry?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer is "Yes" but my right hon. and learned Friend would surely say that that would either have to be done at the expense of reducing public expenditure elsewhere or by raising taxation or borrowing.

Mr. Jay: Is the Secretary of State aware that interest rates would have been a good deal lower today if the Government had not abolished exchange controls?

Sir K. Joseph: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman is correct in being so confident and in deciding what decision-makers all over the world would have done about the exchange rate, which in itself has some connection with our internal financial affairs.

Mr. Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of national wage bargaining is of major importance to manufacturing industry and to employment prospects?

Sir K. Joseph: I am being tempted by all sorts of subjects outside my responsibility. Wage bargaining that ignores crucial local factors of supply·demand and profit does great damage to those firms and workers concerned.

Mr. John Silkin: Why is the Secretary of State being so modest about his Government? Why does he not take credit for his right hon. Friend's recent Green Paper on the streamlining of bankruptcy procedures, which must make life so much easier for him now that we have a record number of bankruptcies?

Sir K. Joseph: We still have some way to go before we reach the level of bankruptcies achieved by the Labour Government in 1975, 1976 and 1977.

Post Office Equipment

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what estimate he has made of the extent to which United Kingdom industry will be able to respond to official encouragement to manufacture private sector telephone and telecommunications equipment following his statement on 21 July.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Adam Butler): From my consultations with the industry I believe that the majority of United Kingdom companies will be well placed to respond to the market opportunities that our proposals will open up, but in order to allow the industry time to adapt to the changed circumstances we intend to phase in the new regime.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is there now not a tremendous opportunity open to the industry? What steps will my hon. Friend take if, in the early stages of the development, inferior equipment comes in from the Far East and elsewhere?

Mr. Butler: The purpose of phasing in is to try to ensure that imports do not flood the market. A continuing certification procedure will be carried out.

Mr. Les Huckfield: Does the Minister accept that it is not a lack of Mickey Mouse telephones, but a basic lack of investment, that is causing the problem confronting our telephone service? Since his policy does nothing to alleviate that lack of investment, does he accept that the 20 per cent. increase in charges and rentals announced recently is only the forerunner of a continuing series of higher increases, longer waits for connections and a basic deterioration in the standard of telephone services?

Mr. Butler: The telephone system will benefit because of the increased traffic that will come about through the increased number of pieces of equipment available to the consumer.

British Materials Handling Board

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Industry on what grounds he authorised his Department's sponsorship of the British Materials Handling Board.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Financial support for the British Materials Handling Board by the Department was authorised by the previous Administration.

Mr. Stanbrook: Is my hon. Friend aware that the board recently announced its coming into existence in a letter consisting of 20 foolscap sheets to hundreds of British firms, promising the creation of many working groups and offering

visits by members and officers of the board to, and I quote—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he cannot quote during Question Time.

Mr. Stanbrook: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that this quango should have been stifled at birth?

Mr. Marshall: This is not a quango in the accepted sense of the term. The Institute of Materials Handling, which was instrumental in setting up the board, meets in part the financing of the board's activities. I have taken note of what my hon. Friend has said. It might help him to remember that the Government have no plans to extend the funding beyond 31 March 1982.

Aid to Industry

Mr. Joseph Dean: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will review the Government's policy on aid to industry in the various regions.

Mr. Woolmer: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what plans he has to review the assisted area status of different parts of the country in the light of worsening unemployment and industrial prospects since he last made announcements on this matter.

Sir Keith Joseph: The Government thoroughly reviewed regional industrial policy, including assisted area gradings, before making last year's announcement of changes. We are continuing to watch closely the position in different parts of the country, but we must maintain reasonable relative stability in the grading of assisted areas if investment incentives are to remain effective.

Mr. Dean: Is the Secretary of State aware that his policies are consigning an increasing number of Leeds schoolchildren straight to the dole queue, where they will remain for the foreseeable future? Is that not a disgraceful policy? For God's sake, when will he alter it?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept the connection between changes in regional policy and unemployment among school leavers, in Leeds or elsewhere. If the original regional policy which I changed


was so magic in its effect, why did unemployment among school leavers rocket every year under the Labour Government?

Mr. Woolmer: Is the Secretary of State aware that while the national unemployment figures have increased by 44 per cent. under the present Government, in West Yorkshire the increase is 59 per cent., and in Batley a massive 97 per cent.? Will the Secretary of State examine again the position of the textile and engineering towns in the West Riding and ensure that he restores the regional assistance which they so desperately need in their current economic plight?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating the effect of the regional assistance that was available. The Government remain willing to reconsider the relative position of any constituency if an application is made to them to do so.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the greatest aid to industry in the regions is the conquest of inflation, because business will not invest to expand until the rate of inflation comes down? I welcome his measures to help the regions, but will he ensure that such measures are not taken at the expense of the need to control inflation?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has identified the key problem. Until we reduce public spending as a proportion of national spending, interest rates and inflation will not be brought down and industry will not have the chance to recover.

Mr. Straw: Is the Secretary of State aware that the fact that when aid to North-East Lancashire industries has been withdrawn unemployment has rocketed—in some cases doubling in 15 months—is proof positive that he and his Government do not care tuppence how many thousands are thrown on the dole? If the Government care about unemployment in the regions, will the Secretary of State give a commitment to reinstate the regional assistance that North-East Lancashire has lost?

Sir K. Joseph: No, Sir. The Government have carefully retained special development area status for the worst hit parts of the country, precisely because we need to focus the incentive to invest.

Mr. Emery: When stimulating new industry and industrial growth, will my right hon. Friend examine certain industries which he sponsors and which are involved in the recycling of waste, such as paper, metals, glass and plastics? Does he agree that without subsidy but with direction and leadership from the Government, such industries might move more quickly?

Sir K. Joseph: I hope that my hon. Friend will either tell me, or write to me about, what he has in mind.

Mr. Bagier: Does the Secretary of State agree that the problem is not so much one of aid to areas as the damage to areas that has been done by the Government? Will he take on board the fact that energy prices for the glass, foundry and paperboard industries are having a disastrous effect on those industries in the regions? Will he and the Secretary of State for Energy ensure that energy prices here are brought into line with European prices?

Sir K. Joseph: There is an argument about the charges being made. However, energy prices have rocketed, and our industries have to live with increased energy prices.

Mr. Stokes: Does my right hon. Friend realise that aid to the regions must penalise other areas of the United Kingdom, including the West Midlands, which is the manufacturing centre of England?

Sir K. Joseph: Certainly the extra money that the Opposition are so free in spending comes out of the pockets or the handbags of their and our constituents.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in every area that he has deprived of intermediate area status unemployment has skyrocketed in the 12 months since he made his announcement? Does he accept that such areas will be damaged further by the proposed enterprise zones? Does he agree that another review of regional policy is required?

Sir K. Joseph: The hon. Gentleman has answered his questions out of his own mouth, because unemployment has risen all over the country in the last year, whereas assisted area status was changed only in the last month.

European Community (Membership Benefits)

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will undertake a study of the effects on manufacturing industry of European Economic Community membership.

Mr. Adam Butler: The benefits and effects of membership of the European Community are wide-ranging; a study of one sector alone would be of limited value.

Mr. Marlow: Since energy prices in the United Kingdom are much higher than they are in some of the subsidised countries in Western Europe, with devastating effects on some industries; since interest rates, for good reason, are higher in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe, again with cost effects on industry; and since our exchange rate is very high, does my hon. Friend agree that all those grave disadvantages together have allowed for a massive increase in European manufactured imports? Can he say what the advantages are to manufacturing industry of membership of the EEC and how—if only one question might be asked—this outweighs the disadvantages?

Mr. Butler: We have to take the view of business as recorded today in a survey by the Institute of Directors, which stated that more than half of those interviewed thought that, overall, there were benefits from European membership.

Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister say what benefits have accrued to manufacturing industry in the East Midlands from membership of the EEC, as the area is cascading into short time and insolvencies and desperate difficulties of unemployment are arising in a region that was previously prosperous?

Mr. Butler: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows as well as I do the serious situation in the textile industry. I suggest to him that membership of the European Community, and having the strength of the Community behind us in negotiating the multi-fibre arrangement, have been of benefit to the textile industry, which would not otherwise have existed.

Mr. Gummer: Will my hon. Friend be careful that he does not encourage people to make the EEC a scapegoat for everything that goes wrong in this country? Would it not be more true to say that the problems of manufacturing industry arise from not being competitive? They are problems that would be with us whether we were inside or outside the Common Market, except that outside the Market they would be much more difficult.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend makes my speech for me. He is right on every count. There is no question but that our industry would be worse off outside the Common Market. It is up to our manufacturers to take advantage of the considerable opportunities that are open to them.

Mr. John Silkin: In view of the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Gummer) and in view also of the fact that this year the deficit on trade in manufactured goods with the EEC will reach £5 billion, which does the hon. Gentleman think is more to blame: membership of the Common Market, or the Government's industrial policy?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman's views on the Common Market are well known. He does not disguise them. The fact is that our manufactured exports to the Common Market have gone up four times as fast as they have to the rest of the world. I repeat what I have just said. It is up to our manufacturers, who are perfectly capable of taking advantage of the opportunities open to them. We have certain advantages. Our wage rates are half those in the Common Market. We are not competitive at the moment. We can become competitive, and then we can compete.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. There is a £5 billion deficit this year. How will he remedy it? Who does he blame?

Mr. Butler: The fact is that, overall, in real terms, the deficit decreased in 1979 against 1978.

Manufacturing Industry

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what was the index of


production in manufacturing industry in the most recent month for which figures are available; and what was the figure in the same month in 1974.

Mr. Michael Marshall: The index for manufacturing stood at 97·2 in May 1980. In May 1974 it was 109·2.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has quoted show a most unsatisfactory trend? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that demand for the products of manufacturing industry rise, so that output will rise as well?

Mr. Marshall: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this problem. It is one that the Government recognise, but it cannot be divorced from the world recession. As regards Government activity, there are a number of aspects on which the Government have made it plain that they can help at the present time; for example, on the question of enlightened public purchasing, their attitude to research and development, and over a whole range of issues, where constructive policies are in hand.

Mr. Forman: As my hon. Friend has mentioned Government public purchasing, will he confirm that there is a better than even chance that ICL will be awarded the contract for the Inland Revenue computer?

Mr. Marshall: That is an interesting question, but it goes wider than the original question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the Minister's reply, will he take time to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about his extraordinary ideas on the relationship between moonlighting and entrepreneurial endeavour?

Mr. Marshall: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has up his sleeve. On his basic argument, he must recognise that these matters should be examined in a wider international context.

Raw Materials (Stockpile)

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what steps are being taken by the Government to stockpile raw materials essential to manufacturing industry, particularly metal manufacture.

Mr. Adam Butler: The Government are consulting industrial, mining and financial interests about the prospects for the supply of essential minerals for which United Kingdom industry is dependent on overseas sources. The need for stockpiling is being discussed in these consultations.

Mr. Hooley: At least that is an improvement on previous answers. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some other Western European industrial countries, such as West Germany, are not sitting back and consulting but are taking active steps to stockpile essential industrial raw materials? Is he aware that so long as the instability in South Africa continues to increase that is a prudent line of action?

Mr. Butler: We are, of course, aware of what happens among our Common Market partners. The hon. Gentleman will, surely, agree that it is best to have thorough consultations on a matter of considerable strategic and economic importance.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Is my hon. Friend expecting a blockade? Are we going to blockade South Africa? Or is that country going to blockade us? There is surely no possible reason why this country should consider stockpiling any material at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend knows that it is not just South Africa from where some of these commodities come. It must be sensible to consider whether we should stockpile some vital raw materials.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Secretary of State for Industry, in the light of the large pockets of unemployed persons, and the danger of further redundancies in the South Yorkshire area, if he will take steps to bring new industries into the area.

Mr. David Mitchell: Most of South Yorkshire continues to be an assisted area. But industrial development there—as elsewhere—depends primarily on setting the national economy on the right course, as our policies are intended to do, together with the enterprise, skill and realism of management and workers.

Mr. Wainwright: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my constituents in the Dearne Valley, both at Wombwell and Mexborough employment exchange areas, have lost all hope of any promise given by this Government being realised? Is he aware that declaring the Mexborough employment district a development area has created more unemployment, more short time and more threatened redundancies for the future? When are the Government going to rebuild industry—to which the Prime Minister has referred—to provide a better standard of living for our people? When will that happen?

Sir Keith Joseph: Humbug.

Mr. Mitchell: That is, indeed, the programme of this Government. Nobody would expect the Government's programme to be achieved in the course of its first year or 18 months in office. The hon. Gentleman is talking sheer humbug if he pretends otherwise.

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Secretary of State to shout "Humbug" across the Floor of the House?

Sir Keith Joseph: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The moment that the hon. Gentleman had asked his apparently angry question, he winked at one of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is possible that the hon. Gentleman's eyelid moved. We are anxious to make progress with questions. To accuse anyone of humbug is not our normal custom.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Sir K. Joseph: I withdraw the word "Humbug". I do not withdraw the observation that the hon. Gentleman winked, smiled and laughed at one of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Donald Thompson.

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Mr. Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment after the Summer Recess.

Mr. Thompson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That stops further questions on the matter.

South Yorkshire

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will revise the arrangements for the assistance of industrial development in South Yorkshire in general and in the Rother Valley constituency in particular.

Mr. David Mitchell: I have no plans to reverse the decisions announced in July last year on regional aids in South Yorkshire.

Mr. Hardy: Is the Minister aware that South Yorkshire is not amused at the Government's attitude or at the comments that have just emanated from the Government Front Bench? Will the hon. Gentleman make clear whether any other part of the Western world has experienced the same rate of astonishing and rapid unemployment? Does he consider that our constituents should attribute this situation to economic incompetence, or to sheer political indifference?

Mr. Mitchell: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that Canada has had a similar experience, but none of the other countries in the Western world has suffered the inheritance and the legacy left to us by the previous Government.

Mr. Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that we in West Yorkshire are sick of our jobs being drained away to the coal areas of Rotherham, and to the steel areas, where they are subsequently wasted? We should welcome a more even-handed attitude.

Hon. Members: The hon. Member winked.

Mr. Straw: He smiled.

Mr. Mitchell: I shall keep in mind the points that my hon. Friend has made. The Government care so much about unemployment in the areas where it has been entrenched for years that we have thought it right to give priority to those areas in our assisted area policy.

Mr. Allen McKay: Is the Minister aware that working people in South Yorkshire have the skill, expertise and desire to co-operate with management, but what they do not have is the backing of the Government? High interest rates,


other high charges and the Government's policies are ruining the basic industries of South Yorkshire.

Mr. Mitchell: I am not sure whether that was a question or an observation, but if the hon. Gentleman will be patient he will find that the policy of controlling inflation in the way that we are doing will produce the results that he desires.

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OF CONFIDENCE

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Attorney-General when he anticipates receiving the Law Commission report on the law of confidence.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): I do not expect to receive the Law Commission's report before the end of the year.

Mr. Janner: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree that the decision in the BSC and Granada Television case has created new and perilous possibilities of confrontation between journalists and the rule of law? As the Prime Minister has said that she wishes to defer consideration of legislation to change the law and to overrule that decision until after the Law Commission has reported, will the Attorney-General urge the commission to act more swiftly and to produce answers and proposals for legislation in its report?

The Attorney-General: No doubt the Law Commission will bear in mind the decision of the House of Lords and the judgments when they are given at the beginning of next term.

Mr. Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, whatever may happen in future, the rule of law is the rule of law, that the law ought to be obeyed and that attempts to prevent the law from being obeyed are to be thoroughly deplored?

The Attorney-General: That concept is one of the reasons why I hope that the Law Commission will have plenty of time in which to consider what I believe to be a very important decision of the House of Lords.

Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the number of decisions that require to be taken on

the law affecting the news media is ecalating? Has any consideration been given recently to the reports of the Phillimore committee on contempt, the Faulks committee on defamation or the Younger committee on privacy? Is it not time to consider the whole package of privileges, restrictions and safeguards affecting the media and to invite Parliament to take some decisions on the merits, rather than allow the courts to take piecemeal decisions on the precedents?

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have to admit that his Government did not show any great anxiety to deal with any of those reports. As he knows, it is our intention to publish a Bill on contempt early in the next Session. The other important matters are still under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Mr. Hastings: asked the Attorney-General, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) 18 July, what his reasons are for refusing to publish his correspondence with the chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation relating to offences allegedly committed by members of the staff of the British Broadcasting Corporation under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.

The Attorney-General: There was an Adjournment debate in the House on Friday, as a result of which the BBC decided to publish those letters. They were not published by me, because I regard letters between myself and those to whom I write saying that they are not to be prosecuted as confidential.

Mr. Hastings: The House will be grateful for what my right hon. and learned Friend said in his speech on Friday, the clear warning that he gave to the BBC and his letter to Sir Michael Swann about these disgraceful incidents. Does he agree that in its reply the BBC purports to imply that there is some imprecision about section 11 of the Act? Will he therefore confirm that it is the duty of any employee of the BBC, or of any other medium, who has any contact with known or suspected terrorists to report that fact immediately to the police or security forces?

The Attorney-General: I think that I made that clear in the debate on Friday. I have to say that I regret the manner of the reply of the BBC in not accepting the law, which I think is clear on this point.

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Attorney-General what representations he has received following his decision not to institute proceedings under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1976 in connection with recent incidents involving the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend was himself able to hear the representations I have received, in the course of the debate last Friday.

Mr. Stanbrook: While expressing appreciation of what my right hon. and learned Friend said on Friday, may I suggest that the reply from the BBC amounted, in the eyes of at least some, to a rejection of his warning? Is he therefore considering other ways in which the seriousness of the warning might be brought to bear on the BBC?

The Attorney-General: I think that the press comment that followed the debate initiated by my hon. Friend emphasised that what I said was the law and that I would be stricter in future. In particular, it stressed that I was making clear that it was a stern warning.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not deeply disturbing that there appears, at least to the layman, to be one law for large public corporations and another for private individuals?

The Attorney-General: The approach of Law Officers of any party is always the same, whether a large corporation or an individual is involved. The various factors that I took into account were set out in detail in the speech that I made on Friday.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is important that the Law Officers should preserve their discretion over prosecution and should not regard it as vital that prosecution must follow automatically whenever they get evidence of a breach of the law?

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment. As far as I know from the records, it has been the practice of my Department for many years that because a

case may show prima facie evidence, it does not always follow that it is necessary for there to be a prosecution. There are other ways of dealing with cases, apart from always prosecuting.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. ALBERT DALE BRAEUNINGER

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Department of Public Prosecutions, with a view to prosecution under section 5 the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949, the case of Mr. Albert Dale Braeuninger.

The Attorney-General: No, Sir. I have no evidence to justify such a reference.

Mr. Price: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that unauthorised telephone tapping within the United Kingdom is a criminal offence, even if it is carried out by foreign diplomats, such as United States' diplomats working in this country? Can he also confirm that the White Paper on telephone tapping did not cover overseas telephone calls being routed through the United Kingdom? If I send him further evidence that criminal offences in that regard are taking place, will he answer "Yes" to my question in future?

The Attorney-General: I shall certainly receive any evidence that the hon. Gentleman has which is material to this matter. Beyond that, I refer him to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17 July.

Mr. Cryer: Surely the reply of the Prime Minister was merely a device, well known to Governments, to block further scrutiny by the democratically elected assembly of Parliament. Is it not the Government's duty to take action when at least a prima facie case is made out in an important, albeit small circulation, weekly journal to show that there is a breach of the law, with the Post Office feeding in material to a foreign Power?

The Attorney-General: I do not believe that any lawyer reading the article in that journal would even start to believe that it showed a prima facie case.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAIL (LEGAL AID)

Mr. Archer: asked the Attorney-General whether he has now considered


the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Legal Services relating to the provision of legal aid for bail applications; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: These recommendations are still under consideration.

Mr. Archer: As at any one time there are at least 5,000 unconvicted people in prison awaiting trial, as each costs the community £112 per day, as the prisons are overcrowded and as about half those defendants are found not guilty or given non-custodial sentences, is there not some reason for anxiety? Since those represented before a judge in Chambers have five times the prospect of being given bail as do those who rely on the Official Solicitor, may we have an early decision on the proposals?

The Attorney-General: It is right to emphasise that the Official Solicitor always gets a much higher proportion of hopeless cases. Those who instruct a private solicitor when there is no prospect of success will be advised by the solicitor not to go on, and they will probably accept his advice. The Royal Commission made about 370 recommendations. Many of them are of great importance and we are having to look at them as a whole. I appreciate the problems that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has raised.

Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the arrangements for the provision of legal aid are unsatisfactory in many respects, besides those that relate to applications for bail? For example, is he aware of the difficulties of parents seeking to recover custody of their children in care, because those parents are not eligible for legal aid? Is it not important that urgent consideration should be given to the possibility of bringing forward recommendations to provide for a complete overhaul of the legal aid system?

The Attorney-General: I shall see that the hon. Member's views are made known to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Does the Attorney-General appreciate that a great deal of injustice is done in many instances when legal aid is not available for bail appli-

cations? Does he agree that in a previous incarnation he sympathised with legal aid being extended into this area?

The Attorney-General: I have not lost any of my sympathy with the position of those awaiting trial, especially when they are still before the magistrates, who do not have the remedy of going to the Crown court and my feelings that they should be offered every facility. However, we have to look at that recommendation with all others, and there are others of high priority, too.

Later—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), the Attorney-General, who I notice has leapt out of the Chamber, said that he would draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Home Secretary. About bail, that might be relevant. However, my hon. Friend was asking about parents trying to get back their children, which is a civil matter and the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor who, as we know, does not wish this matter to be discussed in any Select Committee of the House. I hope that the Attorney-General will draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of his noble and learned Friend as well.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has said will be brought to the notice of the Attorney-General. I was very kind to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). I allowed him to go beyond the scope of the question, which was limited to legal aid for bail applications. I exercised my discretion in the last week before the recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLEGG COMMISSION

Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Many hon. Members coming to the House today will have seen reports in the press saying that there was to be a statement about the abolition of the Clegg Commission. A report in The Times, for example, has the headline
Abolition of Clegg commission on pay is expected today.
That is a major statement of policy, if it is to take place.
We know that some questions for written answer were put down on Friday. Even so, I think that the House would find it extraordinary if there had not been an application for a statement on this subject to be made by the Prime Minister. Therefore, I am asking whether you will indicate to us, Mr. Speaker, whether the Prime Minister has asked to make a statement today on this subject. The Opposition and, I think, the whole country will imagine that on a matter which may affect grievously the rights of the public service there should be a statement to the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing about this matter. I have received no request. If I had, of course, I should have granted it.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed

That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 27th October and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. MacGregor.]

Mr. Speaker: I have not selected the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer).

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: When hon. Members go up for the long recess, one of the many anxieties which they take with them is the sense that on matters affecting individual constituents, especially those which fall under the heading of health and social services, they will have no parliamentary opportunity for several months of bringing pressure to bear upon Ministers.
I feel that this is a proper occasion to press upon Ministers matters which, during the three months that we shall be absent from this place, may be the subject of ministerial discretion where that ministerial discretion seems at present not to be consistently or equitably exercised. I wish to detain the House for a few minutes to raise a subject of which I have given notice to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, who is responsible for health and social security, although I take this opportunity to say to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the care and fullness with which he has dealt with the individual matters raised in previous debates of this kind have been very much appreciated: and no doubt he, too, will have had notice of my point.
It was on 5 March this year that, as a result of a parliamentary question, it came to my notice that there was an extraordinary variation in the use by different health boards in Northern Ireland of their right and duty to give assistance in certain cases with the installation of telephones. I have in mind especially cases where elderly persons of limited mobility, who might be in medical danger if they were unable to communicate rapidly through the telephone, could be assisted.
The figures showed an enormous and inexplicable variation between, for example, 0·85 per thousand of the population in the Northern region and 0·27 per


thousand in the South region, where my constituency is located. I therefore put down a further question seeking the explanation of this from the Minister concerned. He confirmed in his reply that
The telephone scheme is administered in accordance with uniform criteria laid down by the Department
—this only made the problem more difficult—and went on to say that the fact that application was
a matter for the judgment of the Board staff
together with differences in
matters such as population densities"—[Official Report, 12 March 1980; Vol. 980, c. 699.]
He said that these might account for the variation.
Considering that differences in the distribution of aged families might at any rate account for some of the immense disparity, I put down a similar question but restricted it to assistance with the telephone for persons aged 65 years and over. The result on 26 March was to show up an even more crass disparity. For example, the rate per 1,000 population aged 65 or over was 4·2 in the Southern region but 13·4 in the Northern region. On the face of it, figures such as that seem to me to show that whatever may be the uniformity of the criteria the administration of the scheme is unsatisfactory and must surely cause hardship, especially in the region to which I have drawn attention.
It is impossible to suppose that between the different regions, which are very large and each represent roughly a quarter of the Province, there can be demographic or other differences sufficient to account for that inequity. I was impressed when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), whose constituency is not one where this problem might be thought to be all that pressing, passed to me a letter which he had received from a community worker. With permission, I shall quote one or two sentences from that letter, since it refers to this matter:
The community worker said:
I am concerned that the present system does not have the safeguard of an appeal procedure if help or assistance is refused to a person by the Board. Recently I have heard of several decisions made by our local office which I personally feel have been grossly unfair, but unfortunately the individual does not have the right of appeal and the decision has to be accepted as final.

I thought that that was a very apt illustration of anxiety which I know is shared by at least some of my colleagues and is evidently felt more widely.
Whether the correct answer is to have an appeals procedure, I do not venture to say. I should hesitate to institute yet another procedure of that kind, with all the deterrent trappings, from the point of view of ordinary members of the public, which tribunals, and so on, can have.
However, with the House rising for a matter of three months, I consider that the evidence constrains the Northern Ireland Office, especially the Minister of State in charge of health and social security, to institute a detailed investigation of the manner in which the scheme is being applied by the different boards in order to end the serious unfairness and failure to render an intended service which the figures appear to disclose.
It should not be too difficult, by taking appropriate samples from each of the board areas, to understand how the scheme is being worked and how it is being interpreted, and to bring what surely must be only fairness and justice into the working of the scheme, particularly for those in the areas where its application has clearly been too limited. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to say, in the all too common slang expression, that the matter has been "taken on board" by the Minister of State concerned.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I should like to raise on or two wider matters than those dealt with by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), because my support for the motion is qualified. That qualification centres around the use which will be made of the recess by Ministers, and particularly by their officials. I am perfectly content that the House should rise for three months and that Ministers should be answerable to us over that period only by correspondence, so long as they set their officials some homework.
To start with the Treasury, I should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to commission a study from his officials of the benefits of abolishing stamp duty for first-time home buyers, where it has become an unnecessary example of fiscal drag. The burden on first-time buyers is


probably £50 million, and abolition should help to increase the mobility of the working population without an intolerable cut in taxation.
It would be useful if the Chancellor also commissioned a study of the advantages of abolishing corporation tax, which no longer serves the purpose for which it was designed. It is a burden and a bore for industry, it does not yield much and everyone would get on much better if it were abolished. However, I concede that there should be a study of the advantages of doing so.
I would also ask for a study of the advantages of a return to what used to be known as schedule A, by which the prudent householder was encouraged to spend money keeping his house in good order. I concede at once that I might be said to have an interest as a director of a company in the home improvement industry, but the importance of the matter goes wider than any such sectional interest. It is to the nation's advantage that its houses should be kept in good nick and that there should be no growth in the black economy.
Most hon. Members know that many householders these days have their houses painted or their roofs repaired or other tasks of that sort done by little men who do not necessarily declare every penny that they earn to the taxman—to put it as mildly as I can. If it were possible to restore schedule A, not merely would the householder be encouraged to be prudent and sensible, not only would the Inland Revenue benefit, but there would be a significant drop in the unemployment figures, because all the little men would on the surface cease to be members of the black economy. That is a profitable way in which the Chancellor's officials could spend the coming three months.
The Northern Ireland Office has an important task to which Ministers are apparently committed—that of reviewing the arrangements whereby they make free with our money in grants and loans to businesses in the Province. That should be reviewed and the review should be finished before the House returns, since some deplorable situations seem to be arising.
For instance, an organisation called Lear Fan Ltd. has recently been formed

with a Government contribution totalling £3·4 million. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has properly said that it is not the Government's normal practice to disclose the other funds which may be made available from public resources to such a company, but in this case the company itself is telling people that it has also negotiated Government loans and guarantees of $50 million.
If it appears above the surface that the taxpayer is providing only £3·4 million but the actual or prospective commitment is about £25 million, Ministers should bring their review forward with maximum urgency so that the House may know all about this matter as soon as we reassemble. I make no comment on the merits of this project, but I am worried about the financing of it and the control over it which the House should have.
There is a matter on which the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Industry should do some joint work and on which recommendations should be made to Ministers. That is the evaluation of a conscious strategy of support for British manufacture from public procurement—particularly in defence projects but in other areas as well. I should like those two Departments, possibly together with the Treasury, to study the advantages to be derived from calculating the true cost of some procurement programmes in terms of what I would call a "red, white and blue pound". Money spent overseas is gone for ever, but public money spent here costs us less in the end—precisely how much less it is impossible to calculate, but some people say that it is 30p in the pound less.
That is an overwhelming argument for placing in our own economy as much as possible of necessary spending on defence and other things, and for declaring the reasons for it. If there were a study, Ministers would be able to inform us when we return.
There are other such suggestions that I could make. I would dearly like the Department of the Environment to take the regional water authorities by the scruff of the neck and shake them until some of the staff fell out. I hope that we can have a report along those lines. If such a report appears before the recess ends, I


shall not be the first to complain. Many of us feel that the regional water authorities and the whole water industry are totally out of control and that their principal activity has become one of writing themselves blank cheques. Ministers may take a different view, but their civil servants would be well employed writing a forceful and not necessarily long report on this thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I hope that all these points can be connected. This work should be done for a particular and additional reason. I am not asking for any U-turn. The Government's policies are right and they are working, but the closer they come to the point where results begin to show, the more important it is that we should be ready with the second-stage policies. Whether that happens during the recess or later on, when we reassemble—whether the upturn in the American economy, which is so dominant in the Western world, comes sooner rather than later—it is essential that Departments, industry and individuals should be ready to take advantage of the economic upturn, which will come when the results of the Government's policies begin to flow.
The present situation may mislead us in some ways. I am not one who thinks that wage increases are the sole reason for our present economic predicament. I certainly do not think that the price-cutting war in the high street is encouraging since it represents de-stocking, which means that firms are trying to turn goods back into cash because the price of cash it too high. Nor does it presage a sudden upturn in demand.
The really important thing for the second stage of our economic policy is that there should not be a self-perpetuating collapse in demand, which would do enormous damage to the economy's prospects of recovery. It is true that there has been a sharp drop in demand. As de-stocking goes on, the requirement to refill the pipeline will help to raise the level of demand to a degree.
It is most important that we should maintain that demand in the productive sector. A high priority must be to curb the demand on the non-productive sector of our economy and to see that the demand goes where it will really do good, namely into the productive sector. That

must be the aim of Ministers whether the House is sitting or not, and I wish to be assured that that is very much in their minds over the next three months, which is a longish time for us to be away. I wish to be assured that if there is need during that time for a touch on the tiller, the Ministers will be ready to give it and that their officials will be working—as they will be working themselves—on the longer-term policies which I hope we shall soon find ourselves ready to implement.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I cannot hide my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, at the fact that you did not call what I thought was an eminently reasonable amendment that would give some power to Parliament as opposed to initiative being entirely in the hands of the Government.
Before the House approves the motion relating to the recess, I think that we should discuss two principal items. The first is the application of the criteria by the Government for the restoration of regional assistance. We know that it is set down in the Industry Act 1972, as amended, but the Government are very evasive about what they propose to do. On the one hand they say that regional assistance will not produce jobs, and, on the other, at a time of steel works closures and the rest, they say that they are providing more regional assistance. The Government cannot have it both ways.
I make specific reference to my constituency of Keighley, where the achievement of the Conservatives, after five years of below-average employment under a Labour Government, is that the unemployment level there has increased by no less than 77 per cent. Unemployment in Keighley is at its highest level since 1945 and is now markedy above the national average. That is due to a number of factors, not least of which are the policies of the Government.
I have been trying to find out from the Government how long that level of unemployment has to persist before they take action. When they removed intermediate area status from Keighley last year the Government argued—31 July was the start of the two-year abolition period—that the unemployment level in my


Constituency was below the national average. That was the Government's criterion for removing intermediate area status from Keighley. The Government now say that, though unemployment in Keighley is above the national average, it is no good examining the experience of three, four or five months. How long must we wait for the Government to take action? They argue that regional policy is not the sole panacea—none of us says that it is,—but it certainly helps.
Will the Government tell us when the entrepreneurs are going to arrive? The entrepreneurs are part of the Government's alternative philosophy. Giving cash handouts by way of tax concessions to the already well-off, while cutting public expenditure to finance those handouts, is supposed to produce jobs. Yet no member of the Government will say how long that will take. The Government say that many industries are in decline, that productivity is low, and that labour relations are not good. They say that those are the reasons for unemployment, not the lack of entrepreneurs. Let me remind the Government of one of the industries that is in difficulty in Keighley and West Yorkshire. The general secretary of the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers said of the industry:
It has rationalised and reorganised. It has invested heavily in new plant and machinery. Its improvement in productivity is second to none. It has not been subject to exorbitant wage claims and its record of disputes is as good as any other industry and better than most. Yet, after a decade of doing what the Tories say we should do, the result in 1980 will be a loss of up to 100,000 jobs.
In an industry where all the Government criteria have been met, people are still facing massive redundancies. So what will the Government do to repair that damage. It is a matter of particular concern because a large proportion of people on the unemployment register are young people. The view expressed by the local paper recently was:
Unemployment is now at its highest since records began in 1945 with almost 9 per cent. of the local work force on the dole. In addition, a growing number of firms are operating on short time and according to Keighley Jobcentre manager, Mr. Vic Boyce, the immediate outlook is not very promising.
It is reasonable to ask what the Government propose to do about that. What

will the Government do about the multi-fibre arrangement and its application now? I do not mean in 12 months' time following renegotiation. I wish to know what Government action will be taken now? We are in the position where there will not be sufficient of the industry left for the MFA to have much meaning.
What about pulling interest rates down? It is absolute nonsense to argue that we have high interest rates because of the public sector borrowing requirement. Under the Labour Government, the PSBR was a higher proportion of GDP and we had a much lower rate of interest. There is no automatic connection between the two. If the Government were concerned about the economy and about small firms, they would pull the level of interest rates down. They are able to do that.
A complaint was made to me by one of my constituents whose firm had borrowed £80,000 in order to modernise during the term of office of the previous Administration. The firm was then paying interest at the rate of 8 per cent. Now it is paying almost double that rate of interest. That is how firms get into financial difficulties. That is the way jobs are lost. I emphasise that the House needs, before we go into recess, some definite idea of what the Government propose to do to rescue those jobs. The Government are creating two nations, one clinging on to jobs and seeing their prospects diminishing week by week and the other constituting the dole queues which are lengthening week by week.
That tragedy has not been created by chance. It has been created as a deliberate act of Government policy. The Government are using unemployment, as they see it, to reduce inflation. That is nonsense, because it means an increase in costs in many ways. It also means that there is little hope for the millions who are on the dole.
Secondly, I am concerned about a matter which I hope the Govenment will look at during the recess. It is a matter of major legal concern and, as I understand it, the Government are the Government of law and order. Section 19(2) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 sets out the law as it should be operated concerning the appointment


of the Factory Inspectorate, the agricultural inspectorate and others by saying
Every appointment of a person as an inspector under this section shall be made by an instrument in writing specifying which of the powers conferred on inspectors by the relevant statutory provisions are to be exercisable by the person appointed; and an inspector shall, in right of his appointment under this section—

(a)be entitled to exercise only such of those powers as are so specified; and
(b)be entitled to exercise the powers so specified only within the field of responsibility of the authority which appointed him."

From that it is clear to a sensible, straightforward person that the powers must be specified in writing. What is the position of the Health and Safety Executive and the warrant of appointment of inspectors? I believe that the House does not discuss health and safety at work often enough. We should have a debate on the subject. We lose many days in strike action and this is a much more important topic than some others.
The 1,300 or so warranted inspectors carry identical warrants. They are not differentiated as required by the law. That means that the mines and quarries inspector carries the same warrant as the nuclear inspector, the agricultural inspector, the factory inspector and the alkaline inspector. That is not fair to the occupiers of factories.
If an inspector arrives to examine, for example, an installation under the various detailed and technical regulations covering electrical installations how is the occupier of the factory to know that the inspector is sufficiently qualified? The warrant will not tell him. If the occupier has duties under the law to notify the inspectorate is it right, if, for example, a nuclear installation is involved, that he fulfils that duty by notifying the agricultural inspectorate? That is the position now.
The Health and Safety Executive says that the adjustment is made by administrative means. That, however is not the law. The executive does not exist to make the law conform to its administrative niceties. It exists to obey the law and to see that it is enforced. It is therefore most unsatisfactory for the occupier, the public and employees for the powers and duties of an inspector not to be clearly defined by law as the law says they should be.
I hope that the Leader of the House, who has a difficult job to reply to all these subjects, will be able to assure me that the executive and the commission are bringing their powers of scrutiny to bear on this matter. It has already been the subject of at least one report from the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which pointed out that one instrument that was brought forward was ultra vires—I am referring not to the one that was debated last week but to another.
We must ensure that the law that we pass is clear and unambiguous. We should not leave it to the judiciary to tell the executive what its duties are. It is the job of Parliament and the Government to ensure that the law is enforced.

Mr. Peter Emery: I hope that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will forgive me if I do not debate the two points that he raised. Instead, I wish to raise with my right hon. Friend a matter that greatly concerns a part of my constituency and the large number of people who will be travelling through Exeter airport on holiday during the next few weeks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me assurances on this subject, so that we shall be able to adjourn on Friday with this issue having been cleared up. Alternatively, I hope that he will be able to obtain answers from one of the Ministers in the Department of Trade on a number of the queries that I wish to raise.
On the night of 24 July a Viscount aeroplane carrying 62 people had a remarkable forced landing just outside Ottery St. Mary. Hardly any injury was sustained. It was a remarkable achievement by the pilot in bringing the aircraft down on what is about the only piece of level ground in the area. Most people who have seen the crashed aircraft regard his achievement as almost a miracle.
However, certain questions arise, and in view of the publicity that has surrounded the whole incident, and since I have been unsuccessful in raising the matter in the House until now, I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with the necessary answers.
Will the Minister state categorically that the findings of the inquiry by the Department of Trade will be made public? That is of considerable importance.


Will he confirm that the investigation will obtain all and full co-operation from the Spanish authorities concerning the fuelling of the aircraft before it left Spain? A number of extremely unpleasant reports are circulating. If they are untrue they are highly libellous and slanderous. I do not wish to further them in this debate. It seems wrong that anybody—I am thinking particularly of an ex-Minister who was responsible for these matters and who was commenting on the incident only yesterday—should make assumptions until the inquiry has reported in full.
However, the House and the people concerned have a right to know that the Spanish authorities will be giving every facility to the British inspectors when they check up on all aspects of the fuelling of the aircraft before it left Spain. Will my right hon. Friend state clearly that no fault for the accident can be attributed to Exeter airport in respect of the facilities, the radar, or any other matter? In other words, will he confirm that the fact that the aircraft was bound for Exeter and was perhaps only five miles from the runway does not mean that any blame for the crash can be attributed to the airport or the airport authorities? I ask that because many tens of thousands of people will be travelling through Exeter airport over the coming months. Although the airport has the name of another constituency, it is in my constituency. All the many people from the South-West who will be using the airport must be reassured that it lacks no facility and that no blame for the crash can be put on the airport and its authorities.
I shall be grateful for answers to those questions. My right hon. Friend will understand why it is necessary for this matter to be dealt with before we rise for the Summer Recess. If we were to be here for another two or three weeks, I should not be bothering my right hon. Friend with these matters. If my right hon. Friend is able to answer some of the points I have raised or ensure that Ministers in the Department of Trade can provide the necessary answers, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Peter Archer: I should be a hypocrite if, after the late

debates, the numerous lobbies and the constituency problems of the past few weeks I pretended to view the onset of the recess with anything other than relief. I accept that the matter which I seek to raise may require some thought by the Government. If the Leader of the House can assure me that the Government will consider the matter and will bring it before the House early next Session I would not seek to oppose the motion for the Adjournment for the recess.
That is not to say that this is not a matter of some urgency, because for numbers of my constituents and of the constituents of my bon Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) the summer promises to be very bleak. I shall quote yet another example of the problems arising from the present unhappy state of British industry, particularly industry in the West Midlands. The widespread industrial closures of the past few months have made all the greater the impact in the West Midlands because of the relative suddenness of the transformation from relatively high prosperity and relatively lower unemployment to the position where closures occur almost daily, and where an increased number of unemployed persons is chasing a diminishing number of vacancies.
Birmetals is a company which forms part of the Birmid Qualcast group of foundries. It is situated in the Woodgate area, outside my constituency. However, its 900 employees live in a number of constituencies in this heavily populated area, and a substantial number live in my constituency. A number also live in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I wish to deal with the problems of those workers.
The sad story began in August 1979, about a year ago. I have no direct knowledge of the events. I am piecing the story together, and I will listen to any corrections. The management proposed to restructure the company and brought in auditors for that purpose. Wage agreements had previously been negotiated between the management and unions on an annual basis, running from August to August. Because of the restructuring in August 1979, the management suggested that the agreement should be for


only a six-month period, from 1 August 1979 to 1 February 1980, with a new agreement in February 1980. The unions accepted that proposal and gave their entire co-operation. A pay increase for manual workers of 12½ per cent. was accepted. The company indicated that each group of employees would receive equal treatment. But, while the unions representing the shop floor employees accepted at 12½ per cent. increase, the staff, as defined within that company, received a 14½ per cent. increase and the managers received a 17½ per cent. increase. I say that lest the House should imagine that the offer which the unions accepted was excessive.
As the six-month period drew to a close, the unions sought to re-open negotiations with a view to a new agreement, as had been suggested. They asked for 20 per cent., which has been represented as an effective cause of all that followed. But anyone with experience of industrial negotiations will appreciate that that was an opening bid. There was nothing to indicate that the unions would not settle for less. They expected the management to complain that the demand was too high and to make a counter offer. Had the management wished the company to continue manufacturing, there appears to be no explanation of why it did not make a counter offer, but it made no offer. One can only conclude that it had no intention of reaching agreement. The dispute procedures having been exhausted, with no offer from the management, the unions gave notice of industrial action. That step must have been foreseen by the management, but no attempt was made to suggest an alternative.
In the event, the only employees who took industrial action were the drivers and loaders in the dispatch department. They ceased to load lorries. The other employees continued to report for normal working. The management approached all the other manual employees, group by group, and instructed them to load lorries. First, those employees were being asked to work as strike breakers. No one with any understanding of industry could have expected them to comply with that instruction. Secondly, it was work for which the majority had no training. The work requires fit people with a knowledge of how to load and unload, failing which it can be dangerous. Women of

up to 59 years of age and men of up to 64 years of age were asked to carry out the work, and some of them could not have done so safely. Thirdly, I am told that the duty to perform that work was no part of their contract. The matter may have to be decided by an industrial tribunal, and I shall pursue it no further now. In other circumstances, I may have been tempted to add more colourful comments.
The other employees declined to replace those who normally loaded the lorries. The company subsequently laid off the entire work force for six weeks and then dismissed everyone. Some of those employees had 40 years of fairthful service with the company. Not a word was said about redundancy or severance pay or other benefits. Not surprisingly, the employees are claiming compensation for unfair dismissal before the appropriaate tribunals.

Mr. John Stokes: I have great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is not being in the least bit controversial, and nor shall I be. The factory that he mentions is only a few hundred yards outside my constituency, and 200 of my constituents are involved. They have been to see me on a number of occasions. The slight difference of emphasis that I make is that I consider the 20 per cent. claim to have been absurd, reckless and most unwise. Although there may have been faults on the management side, the 20 per cent. has a great deal to answer for.

Mr. Archer: With his usual fairness, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that any opening bid in negotiations invited by the management would at least be expected to attract a counter offer. The immediate cause of the problem was that no counter offer was made.
It was necessary first to explain how the situation arose. I come now to the present problem, and I do not believe that the House should adjourn before dealing with it. The employees, on applying for unemployment benefit, were told that they were not entitled to benefit. And the reason was not that they had been dismissed for misconduct. Had that been suggested, the matter would have been investigated, and had they been dismissed for that reason the


situation would have been understandable. But it appears that their disqualification rests on section 19(1) of the Social Security Act 1975, as amended by section 111 of the Employment Protection Act 1975, which reads:
A person who has lost employment as an employed earner by reason of a stoppage of work which was due to a trade dispute at his place of employment shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit so long as the stoppage continues … but this subsection does not apply in the case of a person who proves—
(a) that he is not participating in … or directly interested in the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work".
That raises a number of issues. The first is whether the stoppage was due to a trade dispute or whether a decision had already been taken by Birmid Qualcast to close down the company in any event. Some believe that the confrontation was deliberately brought about by the management, after it had decided that the company should not continue in production. Secondly, even if the initial stoppage arose from a trade dispute, the question arises whether a trade dispute continues to be the reason for the stoppage. We do not know whether the management is saying that if the dispute is resolved it will open the factory with the same work force and resume production. Thirdly, the employees' case is that, even if there was a trade dispute, they were not participating in it. They simply declined to do work which they were under no obligation to do.
Those are issues which have to be resolved. There is machinery to resolve them, although the House may wish to consider whether we should introduce machinery which operates more quickly. These employees are receiving no money. It does not help someone who has starved to be subsequently told that he was entitled to the money and that he will recieve the arrears.
But it is the fourth issue to which I wish to invite attention. The scheme of that section is understandable. It says that if the stoppage of work which led to the claimants' being unemployed was due to a trade dispute he shall be disqualified from benefit. Even if the merits of that rule are questionable, it is at least comprehensible. But it would be monstrous if there were no exceptions. If the trade dispute was not of the claim-

ant's making, if he played no part in it, or if he was in no way concerned with it, is he still to be disqualified from benefit? It is said that if the stoppage was due to a trade dispute, even if the claimant did not participate in it or support it, and it was brought about without his wishes, he is disqualified if he is directly interested in it. If these employees may benefit from the outcome they are disqualified from receiving benefit whether participating in the dispute or not.
Some of my hon. Friends will remember the old grade or class provision which disqualified employees from benefit if the stoppage arose from a trade dispute which was not of their doing and even if it was against their wishes. That was a monstrous provision. Some of us campaigned against it for many years, and it was repealed in 1975 by the Government of whom I had the honour to be a member. But it seems that we failed to bolt the back door, because a claimant is still disqualified if he is interested in the trade dispute. That is a monstrous injustice.
That problem may not have been obvious in the past when stoppages were relatively few, but now that companies are closing their plants in fearsome numbers, looking for confrontations which will excuse them from making redundancy payments and enjoying the prospect of beating the unions, with a union-bashing Government looking on like the vestal virgins of ancient Rome, that provision is likely again and again to lead to manifest injustice as it has for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge.
The House ought not to adjourn until the Government have at least indicated that, after the recess, they will come forward with proposals designed to correct that injustice.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise a matter which is causing concern to those whom I have the honour to represent in this House and could be decided by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary before we reassemble after the long recess. For that reason. I am anxious to raise the matter now. The subject is the Local Government Boundary Commission for


England's proposals for electoral arrangements in Hertfordshire.
Together with others who are interested, I received a letter dated 18 July 1980 which included the final proposals for the county of Hertfordshire. I find when I come to the St. Albans district, which I represent, the statement:
We replaced six of the 10 electoral divisions proposed by the county council"—
which is Conservative controlled—
by six divisions proposed by the St. Albans Constituency Labour Party.
I make no complaint on that point. The point at which I become anxious is when I read further in the report:
St. Albans City Council made no observations on our draft proposals".
On reading that, I made inquiries of the St. Albans city council and found that, contrary to what is stated in the report, the council had submitted observations on the proposals on 29 March last. On discovering that, I contacted the Home Office and the Local Government Boundary Commission's office to make that point abundantly clear. Less than a fortnight later, in a letter dated 1 August 1980, which has been sent to the permanent under-secretary of state for the Home Department, it is said:
The commission did not receive the district council's previous letter of 29 March 1980".
It is said that it had been lost in the post. It goes on:
The commission have now seen and considered a copy of the Council's letter of 29 March but they do not wish as a result to propose any change in their recommendations in Report No. 390.
I cannot believe that, having taken from March to July to make final proposals, the commission can within a fortnight decide that, having looked at the city council's letter, it has no wish to change any of its recommendations.
It is clear that the basis of the proposals was that the city council had no observations to make, and the commission makes it clear that it had taken account of other representations which it had received. Therefore, it is difficult to believe that in such a short time, other than for reasons of convenience, it should reach the conclusion that the city council's observations were of no concern to it.
I have received 70 letters from constituents during the past fortnight whilst

I have been trying to grapple with this problem. My anxiety is that their representations and those made originally by the city council might be ignored and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary might reach a conclusion on the matter before he has had an opportunity to read or properly decide upon those representations.
Therefore, I hope that before the House goes into recess I shall receive an undertaking that the Home Secretary will take into consideration the observations which he has now received from the city council. If the commission considers that they are insufficient for it to take note of, at least the Home Secretary should look carefully at them before reaching a decision on this important matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give me the assurance that I seek.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I should like to raise a matter which I think merits the attention of the Leader of the House. I have raised this matter repeatedly in recent months with the Government. I refer to the impact of high electricity and gas prices on industry, especially steel making in the Sheffield area.
I cannot do better than to inform the House of the financial impact that such energy price increases is having on the British Steel Corporation in the Sheffield area this year. The director of the public steel sector in South Yorkshire and on Humberside, John Pennington, has stated that the BSC in Sheffield will be paying £52 million this year for electricity and that that represents half of his production costs. At a press conference a month ago, he stated:
If we pay the increased electricity charges, we go out of business.
We are all familiar with the tremendous problems which have beset steel making in recent years. I am not sure that we are as yet sufficiently aware of the threat that increased energy charges is presenting for steel making. There are other extra costs from increased rates, other public utilities and raw materials. The BSC has to meet and absorb those increased costs by increased efficiency, because it cannot increase its prices. Moreover, it has to compete with rivals in Germany and France who, on the best


information available, are protected against such penal energy charges. John Pennington is concerned that if recent increases in electricity charges are maintained and repeated over the next few years, electric are steel making will become uncompetitive and the large electric are operators will go out of business.
The plight of the private sector is even more serious. Private steel also has to contend with increases in the prices of raw materials, local rates, gas and electricity and, more recently, telecommunications. It is expected to absorb those increased costs by increased efficiency. Private steel, like public steel, has done remarkably well, but there is a limit to what either sector can do.
Furthermore, the private sector is even more locked into a pricing structure than is the BSC. Nominally the BSC is the price leader, but, as some of my hon. Friends representing steel constituencies know, the real power lies with the European Commission.
Nothing could more clearly illustrate the contradictions that the Government have allowed to creep into their industrial and financial strategies than these large increases for gas, electricity, telecommunications, rail and post. The Government are making impossible the attainment of those other targets that they are setting for public sector industries—notably the British Steel Corporation.
We know that over the last few weeks some breathing space has been granted to the BSC. But what of private steel? I was interested to hear the Prime Minister say in the censure debate last Tuesday that some aid would be granted to Dunlop. I sympathise with the plight of Dunlop. It is wholly deserving of that aid. I shall not taunt the Government about U-turns. However, Dunlop does not quite fit into the strategy that I had come to identify with the Secretary of State for Industry. With the best view that one can take of it, Dunlop certainly does not lie in the growth sector. I can only assume that Dunlop is being assisted in order to modernise or to be helped over temporary difficulties.
Those are precisely the criteria that private steel would claim for itself. I hope

that the Leader of the House will convey to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry the plight of private steel. I hope that he will ask whether his right hon. Friend is prepared to act as a long stop for private steel as well as for public steel and firms such as Dunlop. I do not have much optimism in inviting the Leader of the House to do that, because, as I have already said, I have raised this problem with the Departments of Industry and Trade as well as with the Prime Minister. I shall not detain the House by quoting from the last letter that I received from the Department of Industry. I know that my hon. Friends will not be surprised to learn—I suspect one or two Conservative Members as well—that I received no encouragement whatever from the Department of Industry that it is prepared to assist firms now under threat from penal energy charges, nor is it prepared to take any step to ease their competitive position in the face of more advantageous trading terms enjoyed by their Continental rivals.
I go back to the contradiction to which I have already referred and the target that the Government have imposed on the BSC. The BSC will run out of cash in the autumn. Mr. MacGregor is expected to submit his plans in the next few weeks, which are widely expected to propose more closures and redundancies on top of the existing programme of 52,000 jobs.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will point out to his right hon. Friend that it is one thing for the BSC to be saddled with a target which, however burdensome, it is struggling honourably to meet, and another thing, simultaneously, for the BSC to be saddled with increased costs arising directly out of Government policies which, to say the least, do not square with the first strategy.
I know directly from one or two industrialists that what upsets them at present—perhaps a growing number of them—is the apparent indifference on the part of Ministers to the practical problems that industry is facing and the simplistic solutions that are sometimes suggested for overcoming them. Those are harsh words to address to a Conservative Government who traditionally, and by reputation, are expected to have a closer acquaintance than any other party with the feelings and wishes of industrialists.


Some of us have reason to believe that when Labour was in Government during the 1970s that attitude was changing. Some industrialists are now quite uncertain about where sympathy and understanding of their problems really lie.
I cannot do better than to inform the House that only last week I received a copy of a letter addressed to the Department of Industry from the chairman of a large steel firm in my constituency, who pointed out that he found it inconceivable that the Minister should feel that he could do nothing on steel price policy and that he would prefer to leave it to the European Commission and take no steps himself. The chairman referred to similar correspondence that he has conducted in recent months with the Department of Industry. He said that if that correspondence was a fair reflection of what the Department was prepared to do for men in industry such as himself, "God help us all". He concludes his letter by saying:
We want men to run this country, not mice".
I do not think that he is by any means alone in his thinking about the Department of Industry and, perhaps, other Departments of State.
What industry wants more than anything else is some tangible evidence of sympathy and support in coping with the dangers that it now faces. Such sympathy and support have become more and more necessary because of the combined effects of Government policies and the growing economic recession.

Mr. John Stokes: In view of the amount of time that is available for this debate, I shall not comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), except to say that many firms in the Midlands, including firms in the private steel sector, understand only too well some of the problems that he outlined. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I support the Government's measures in general, but I am disturbed at the fact that among our competitors in France and Germany the price of gas is half what it is here. I still await a satisfactory answer to that question from the Government.
Before stating why I think we should not disperse for the Summer Recess, I should like to add one comment to the speech of my respected neighbour, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), with whom I have close and friendly relations, about the strike at Birmetals. In the account that he gave, he omitted so say—at least, according to my information—that the unions which in the past had good relations with the management unfortunately allowed some young hotheads to gain great influence. That has a lesson for all of those now in employment—that they must attend their union meetings and make sure that their views are expressed.
I feel that we should not adjourn for the Summer Recess until we have discussed education. I do not mean education narrowly, in the sense of the assisted place schemes, or even in the context of the Labour Party's proposal to try to abolish private education. In my view, there should be a debate on education in the wider sense, because it affects the life and future of the nation in a tremendously important way.
The assisted places scheme is a very modest measure, intended to replace in some small way the direct grant schools. Those schools, in the view of many people, afforded a marvellous ladder up the slope for any boy or girl of parents of modest means who could not afford to pay the fees for private education.
The Opposition opposed the measure bitterly, for quite mistaken reasons, but their objection pales into insignificance compared with the recent proposals of the Labour Party to abolish, if it can, all private education. It is nothing short of a totalitarian proposal, depriving parents of a fundamental right, and is fraught with the most dangerous implications. It almost seems to presuppose a one-party, all-powerful State where everyone has to be moulded into the same form, without any deviation being allowed.
If this proposal were to be formally adopted by the Labour Party and published in its election manifesto it would cause immense resentment among large sections of the electorate, including many Labour Party supporters. I often wonder why the Opposition are so opposed to private education. It cannot be because private education does not fill a need


and is not highly successful. I am afraid that it is because of sheer prejudice, based on envy and a sense of egalitarianism: because everyone cannot afford private education, the Opposition say that no one should be allowed to have it.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree with the point of view put forward recently by Dr. John Rae, the headmaster of Westminster school? He said that what parents do about the private education of their children must be a private matter, but when they make it the subject of public discussion, as they have done, and when many of them have educated—and continue to educate—their children at public schools, it becomes a matter of public hypocrisy.

Mr. Stokes: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It brings me to my next point, which is that education is so important to the nation and its future that no party in the State should be so arrogant as to want to use it for its own political ends.
We have all seen the Labour Party's successful attempt to destroy the greater part of our grammar schools in this country—many of them with old foundations, with long years of service to the community, and with standards of scholarship, behaviour and moral principles second to none.
Most grammar schools, alas, have now been destroyed, and the Labour Party attack has been switched to the public schools. The case for the public schools needs to be stated fearlessly in the House, and before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. The public schools are an almost unique institution in this country. They take in boys and girls of a quite broad band of intellectual attainment and potential, but they also look for other qualities, such as leadership, the ability to mix, and soundness of character. A public school tries to train the whole person—I am glad that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) is nodding, as he went to a public school l—and not just the brain. The fact that many public schools are boarding schools must make their task easier. Underlying many public schools is their strong Christian tradition, including service to the community.
The product of the public schools has never been so badly needed as today. Far from trying to close these schools, the Labour Party should be trying to help more public schools to open, so that more boys and girls would have the opportunity of going to them.
We all know that for years the products of the public schools went into the Empire, they went abroad, they went into the Civil Service, the Church, the Armed Forces and the City. Now the need is equally great in other spheres, particularly manufacturing industry. I am certain that one of the reasons why industry in this country has had such an unsuccessful record since the war has been the lack of public schoolboys in our factories—boys who could become foremen and managers and give the sort of leadership for which they are trained. It is sorely needed in many of our factories today. I can think of a very large factory, owned by a public corporation, only a few miles from my own constituency, which would benefit from such leadership. The nation must train its leaders, and the public schools have always succeeded in doing this.
Another sphere in which public schoolboys are needed in larger numbers is the police force. I yield to no one in my admiration for our police. I believe that they are the best in the world. But they could be even better if public schoolboys, in larger numbers, could be persuaded to join the force, and if there were a college for training future officers, such as there used to be under Lord Trenchard.
The House seldom debates leadership. When we do, it sometimes causes giggles on the Opposition Benches. I am talking now not about leadership of the Labour Party but about leadership throughout our society, at every level. The French take the greatest pains over it in their different highly specialised and selective schools and colleges, and I understand th at the Russians do the same.
In a democracy we must not, above all, be afraid of leadership and of training men and women for it, We have it in the highest degree in the Armed Services. I wish the rest of the country could catch them up. I believe that the retention—and, indeed, the extension—of the public school system would be the best way to do it.

Mr. Robert Edwards: I shall not follow very closely the speech made by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). Perhaps it will not be out of order to remind the House that the public schools were originally founded to help the children of the poor to get a decent education, but the ruling class moved in and took over those institutions.
A dominant feature of British industry over the past decade or so has been that it has been run by the elitist wealth-owning class of this country. It has made a hopeless mess of most of our industries. But I must not follow the temptation to go too far along that road.
I am opposed to the motion, for a particular constituency reason. It relates to the siting of the enterprise zones. In March of this year we received a Treasury document which short-listed the enterprise zones. One of the zones listed was the town of Bilston, where the steel mills had been closed, creating great difficulties for some of my constituents. Although the development of enterprise zones is highly controversial on the Labour Benches and does not receive a wholehearted welcome, it is greatly welcomed in Wolverhampton. All parties in Wolverhampton, the trade unions and industry, welcomed the statements in a Treasury document to the effect that Bilston should be one of the zones. However, to my amazement, and to the great displeasure of the Wolverhampton council, the Prime Minister made no mention of Bilston in terms of one of the zones in the censure debate on Tuesday. Therefore, there must be some change in Government policy. We have had no explanation why the change has taken place.
In March, immediately following the reference to Bilston as one of the seven zones, the Wolverhampton council called a special meeting of its economic development sub-committee. It invited local industrialists, local trade unionists and the trades council to attend. It had a long and constructive meeting, and the zone was welcomed. There were 34 industries represented at the meeting and 12 firms offered their enthusiastic support. Richardsons Development Ltd. offered immediately £5 million to develop areas of land adjacent to the steelworks for factory development.
The Wolverhampton council immediately sent a constructive document to the Secretary of State for the Environment. It contained a great deal of information and many maps. It worked energetically and constructively to produce a scheme that would create jobs for some of the 1,800 steel workers who had been made redundant.
The Secretary of State for Industry made a statement on 16 July and he recited all the steel-producing areas where there were special problems arising from closures. No mention was made of the closure at the Bilston steelworks. I questioned the Secretary of State and he promised faithfully that he would write to me in detail about help for Bilston. I have received no reply from the right hon. Gentleman. After the energetic response of all parties in Wolverhampton, including the trade unions and industry, and offers to help make the enterprise zone a success, the House will understand that massive disillusionment has taken place.
There was an emergency meeting of the council's economic sub-committee and the town clerk has written to the Department of the Environment to ask the Secretary of State to meet a small delegation of members of the council, the trade unions and industry to discuss why the Government have had second thoughts, apparently, about the zone that was promised to Bilston.
For 100 years steel has been a major means of employing the Bilston work force. Steel making was closed down last year. We lost 1,800 jobs. The rolling mills, which were guaranteed for five years, are now to close, with a loss of 450 jobs, During the past 10 years 200 factories have been closed down in Wolverhampton and a large part of my constituency. During that time 16,000 jobs have been lost. Bilston, a part of my constituency, will become a wilderness of despair unless we get some early and urgent assistance from the Government.
I hope that the Leader of the House will take note of my remarks. I am raising an urgent issue. My constituency needs some definite information before the House goes into recess for three months. I hope earnestly that the right hon. Gentleman will take up these issues with the Secretary of State for Industry—bearing in mind that the right hon.


Gentleman has promised to help steel areas—and with the Secretary of State for the Environment. For the reasons that I have stated, I am opposed to the motion.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: The issue to which I wish to turn the attention of the Government before the House rises for the Summer Recess is the transferability of occupational pensions. I am aware that the evident appeal of such a subject at this late stage in the Session must be questionable. However, I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to listen carefully to the case that I shall be deploying. At a time when we are again emphasising the need for mobility of labour there can be little doubt that the freer transferability of occupational pensions is high on the list of factors that would facilitate that desirable objective.
It is often said that public service pensioners are much better off than their private occupational scheme contemporaries because their pensions are index linked. That is so. I contend that they are much better off because there is free transferability between Government Departments and agencies. There is no such obvious free transferability between one private company and another.
Successive Governments of both parties have understood the need to hasten the process of transferability. I pay tribute to the Labour Government for introducing the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, under which an earnings-related guaranteed minimum pension is required to be provided when a person leaves a firm. It was not appreciated by that Government—it is sometimes not appreciated by many outside the House—that to leave such a guaranteed minimum pension accumulating at inadequate interest rates at a time of high inflation can only lead to the erosion of the total pension that a man finally draws at the age of 60 or 65 years.
It is a fact that public service pensions are index linked whereas private occupational pension schemes are not. It is also a fact that on transferring from one occupation to another a previous pension contributed to by the individual is not dynamised to take account of inflation

after departure to another company. The Government understand the urgency of putting this matter right. They have asked the Occupational Pensions Board to try to solve the dilemma by making recommendations. When the Prime Minister is rightly calling for a greater mobility of labour, added urgency is needed to get the issue finally resolved.
Let us consider the problem confronting Mr. A and Mr. B, who both join a private company at the age of 25 years. Mr. A stays with the company throughout his working life until 65 years of age, while Mr. B leaves at 45 for a job with a better salary with another company. Mr. A's pension is accumulating at current interest rates but Mr. B's contribution to his former employer's pension fund is accumulating at only a modest rate. Assuming that Mr. A and Mr. B earn in parallel to the age of 65 years, Mr. A will have a pension up to 20 per cent. better than Mr. B's. That must be a major disincentive to the mobility to which my right hon. Friend has recently drawn our attention.
Why not merely transfer Mr. B's contributions to his new firm? On the face of it, that would be a simple solution. I fear that it would be too simple. First, not every private pension scheme is on all fours with its competitor. Secondly, to expect a new firm to be well disposed to looking after contributions made when it had no responsibility for Mr. B is to stretch the employer's responsibility. After all, the employer may have attracted Mr. B to his employ by means of an increased salary. He may feel that that it where the responsibility should end.
In such a situation, the State has not and should not have a major role in the solution of the dilemma. I have some knowledge of occupational pensions both as an hon. Member and as a result of previous employment. I submit with all the force at my command that there is something that the Government can do, and that would cost nothing other than the time of some of the Inland Revenue's staff.
My submission is quite simple. Instead of leaving the contribution with the original employer, with little growth, and instead of expecting the new employer to accept retrospective responsibility, the


employee should be able to take his contribution, plus any part of the contributions of his original employer, and place them in an institution's fund under section 226 of the Act. On the face of it, this is an easy solution. One is inclined to ask why it has not been used before. What is to stop a man from taking such an obvious course of action? I fear that the answer is that investment of a lump sum return of contribution is reserved, under section 226, for the self-employed. It is impossible for a person who has not been or who is not about to become self-employed to take advantage of a single investment under that section.
An amendment to the law is necessary My suggestion should enable the cash uptake to be invested once only on the same basis as that available to a self-employed person. That would allow past pension contributions to accumulate as favourably as future contributions. It would help to equate the disparate positions of Mr. A and Mr. B. Its very simplicity and lack of involvement in Government expenditure encourages me to urge this course of action on the Government.
I shall outline the advantages in simple terms. First, it would introduce an element of fairness between the man who stays with one employer and the man who changes jobs from time to time. Secondly, it would assist mobility of labour, to which the Government have recently turned their attention. Thirdly, it would provide an incentive to move, where all the circumstances point to the desirability of doing so. Fourthly, it is the essence of simplicity. Indeed, I hope that that will not be seen by the Inland Revenue as a reason for not turning its attention to my suggestion.
I hope and believe that the Government will see the force of this fundamentally simple argument, and that they will turn their attention to equating the situation between Mr. A and Mr. B, which is manifestly unfair.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I am sure that the Leader of the House will not be surprised if the first Welsh Member to speak in this debate raises the subject of the job crisis in the Principality. However important the transferability of pensions is, it pales into

insignificance in comparison with the immediacy and urgency of that crisis.
On 30 July the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, created by leave of the Government, reported. I commend the report to the House. It concluded:
there exists in Wales not a jobs gap but a jobs chasm into which the economic and social structures of large parts of Wales are in danger of falling. Only a sustained programme of Government assistance to the Principality can prevent this.
That quotation gives some idea of the measure of the problem facing us. Indeed, that problem was made manifest to my colleagues and I as we journeyed to London from Wales. We have been brought face to face with the daily deterioration of the economy of our area.
Although the three-month recess may give Government Ministers an opportunity to travel in Wales and to see the crisis at first hand, it would be wrong to go into recess without having received some response to that crisis. Despite the Government's helpful response last week in relation to Inmos, and despite the one enterprise zone that we have been given, which will assist the lower Swansea valley, the Government have not understood the measure of the crisis. I need hardly remind the Leader of the House of the great political gaffe that the Prime Minister made in Swansea two or three weeks ago. Despite the sensitivity in Wales on the issue of job mobility, she suggested that those in Wales—no doubt she was referring to the skilled—should be ready to move, as their fathers had done, to other parts of the country in search of employment. This issue was raised last Monday during Question Time. When pressed to inform the House about the whereabouts of those job "El Dorados", the Secretary of State said that there were job opportunities in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), in that of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) and in the Heads of the Valleys.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does my hon. Friend also recollect that the Secretary of State said that there were job opportunities in Bridgend? He made that statement in immediate response to a question that I had put, which highlighted the number of redundant workers in the Bridgend area. I pointed out that 4,000 people were already registered at


the Bridgend employment exchange and that 500 students, who were not included on the register, were out of work. That means that 4,500 people are seeking work in the Bridgend area. There are only 38 vacancies. The Secretary of State said that if people wanted to be mobile they should move into Bridgend. My hon. Friend knows that last Monday a further 1,000 redundant steel workers registered in Bridgend because they had been made redundant at the Margam steelworks.

Mr. Anderson: It is clear that neither jobs nor houses exist. If hon. Members need further evidence, they need look only at early-day motion 848, which states:
in Cardigan there are just 55 vacancies for 561 unemployed, at the Heads of the Valleys, Merthyr, with 2,864 unemployed, there are only 122 vacancies, Aberdare with 2,937 unemployed has a mere 51 vacancies and Ebbw Vale, with 4,792 unemployed, has only 179 vacancies.
The Secretary of State counsels the people of Wales to travel to such areas. How out of touch he must be. In the next few months he will have to get ready to take cover from the people of Wales. The figures illustrate that he is out of touch.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to present a balanced picture. The headline of my local paper states:
Firm can't find men for skilled jobs.
The firm's order book is overflowing. The chairman said:
We would like to expand, increase output … There is absolutely no shortage of work … we will have to import the workers we need.
The picture is not as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman may think.

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman should have a word with the Secretary of State for Wales. I recall another Conservative canard last week in relation to British Rail. It was said that British Rail had many jobs for people who sought them, but that was contradicted a few days later by the British Railways Board. I wonder whether the statement reported by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) will be contradicted.
The history of West Glamorgan's difficulties is clear. In July last year the Conservative

package reduced the level of grant available for development areas from 20 to 15 per cent., abolished regional development grants and changed not only the rate but the boundaries.. As a result Swansea was downgraded to intermediate area status with effect from 31 July. Similarly, Neath was downgraded to development area status.
These changes were modified on 19 June, when the Secretary of State for Industry announced that the Port Talbot travel-to-work area was to become a special development area. The constituency of Newport was also affected. However, that is manifestly not enough. The Government have failed to take into account the interdependence of the whole West Glamorgan area and of the part of Mid-Glamorgan represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. It is absurd in the extreme to regard a travel-to-work area as involving Port Talbot when, because of the ease of communications, workers from Neath. Swansea, Llanelli and Bridgend travel into the same area. It is absurd that there should be dramatic changes in the status of the areas.
Perhaps the ultimate absurdity was in relation to the Duport site, which was moved recently from Port Talbot to Neath to gain the advantage of the special development area status which Neath then enjoyed. Now the situation has changed. Port Talbot is a special development area and Neath is a development area, and the Duport site, which the West Glamorgan county council seeks to develop, has lost its status.
The position is deteriorating daily, partly because of the general recession—and we can make political points about that. It is also because of factors specific to West Glamorgan and South-West Wales. I refer to the steel closures. Throughout, the Government have failed to see the interests of what the local regional geographers call "Swansea Bay City" and the interdependence of that whole work area. That was underlined clearly in the Select Committee's report.
If the Government take us seriously—and there is a large question mark over that—they must take four actions. First, they must upgrade Swansea and Neath because of the deterioration and dramatically worsening picture which the area


presents. The figures speak for themselves. In June 1980 unemployment in the Swansea travel-to-work area was 8·5 per cent. In July 1980 it was 10·1 per cent., and the forecast for May next year is 11·9 per cent. The figures for the Neath TTWA are 9·4 per cent. in June 1980 and 11 per cent. in July 1980, and the forecast is 18 per cent. by May next year. That is before the bulk of the Port Talbot redundancies reach the unemployment books. Those areas must be upgraded.
Secondly, the Government must end the uncertainty about the future of the Port Talbot and Llanwern steelworks, which hovers like a cloud over the whole of South Wales. Thirdly, an investment which is within the powers of Government could bring enormous jobs benefit to West Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan. I refer to the go-ahead for the new Mar-gam pit. The area straddles West Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan. The National Coal Board is geared to go ahead almost immediately. It would directly create 1,000 new jobs in the construction period of seven or eight years at a cost of about £20 million per annum. However, there would have to be some modification in the external financial limit of the NCB.
That proposition is linked to the Venice summit and the new emphasis on coal. It is also linked to the bonus which Britain expects from the EEC budget agreement of 30 May this year. Extra funds will be available for social and regional projects and for infrastructure projects related to the coal industry. Six pits with over 4,000 jobs are under direct threat. In the light of the extra money that will be available from EEC funds as the result of the budget settlement, we hope that the Government will examine carefully net pit investment at Margam, which could yield enormous dividends for an area of high unemployment.
Fourthly, I refer to a matter which has been pushed hard by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). I raise the issue with his permission in his absence. It concerns the apprentice school at the British Steel Corporation's premises at Port Talbot. There is considerable spare capacity there as a result of the steel recession. From evidence to the Select Committee we know that the level of apprenticeships in Wales is already

among the lowest in the country. Since the facilities are there, the Government could provide extra training in schools for young people in a very deprived area at relatively little cost.
If the Government fail to measure up to the challenges and let us down, and if they fail to respond to the jobs crisis, there is a danger of increasing social tension and distress in South Wales. That is not a matter which has been paraded by people who wish to foment such unrest, but it is the considered view of the all-party Select Committee. We look to the Government for a response to our jobs crisis.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I shall detain the House for only a few minutes. It would be wrong for the House to go away without an expression of sympathy and support for the good people of Manchester who currently are labouring under probably the worst city council in the country.
On 12 March the council agreed a budget of £208 million. By 19 June the policy committee was saying that it had to make a cut of nearly £22 million. The dates are relevant. The only event to intervene between the two dates was the May election. The council has put itself in the position of being forced to cut its cloth to face a possible deficit by the end of the year of about £20 million and is now forcing through an inevitable series of cuts amounting to about £15 million. It is thereby exhibiting the worst form of local government.
I wish to draw attention to what happens when a city council behaves, for reasons of political difference, bloody-mindedness or simply in an effort to win local elections, in such a thoroughly cynical way. Let us consider some small aspects of what is being done. The council says that one of its first tasks is to get jobs into the city centre. I support that aim. The council is maintaining expenditure on various forms of publicity and job support and that action is supported on both sides of the council. However, the burden of rates on businesses in the city centre is astronomical. Stores are paying rates of hundreds of thousands of pounds, reaching even to £1 million. The burden of rates continues to rise, despite the fact that the Government


have increased the amount given to Manchester by 22 per cent. this year.
It is not sufficient for the council to say that it cannot do anything about that situation. The biggest cynicism is that the council has got itself into the position of running the city for the benefit of its employees rather than for the benefit of the citizens. That is not a glib statement. More and more people are administering less and less.
In 1971, there was one council employee for every 18·61 citizens. In 1974, there was one employee for just over 16 people. In 1979, there was one council employee for every 12 citizens and this year there is one employee for every 11·28 people. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where in the House is there a supporter for the proposition that in times of great stringency, when the businesses of the city are under great strain, the city council should not only exempt itself from the difficulties but should increase the burden of its manpower on the people of the city?
Secondly, council tenants are to face an increase of £2·50 on their rents. Some would say that that is a bad thing to happen. It will certainly be a great strain for the families concerned. However, that position has arisen because the council has refused to consider the matter for the past three years. It has postponed making decisions, and consequently the rent rises will come with great force.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Can my hon. Friend tell us the average rent in Manchester?

Mr. Silvester: I cannot give an accurate figure. In the situation that has arisen in Manchester it is difficult for the local electorate to do much. There is built into the city structure tremendous inertia and vested interest. Even though the electorate is feeling the burden, it is almost impossible for voters to do much about it in a reasonable time.
The Government are taking steps to bring pressure to bear on Manchester, and I hope that they will continue to do so. I do not want to see the powers of local government weakened, but the behaviour of places like the city of Manchester will make it difficult for local autonomy to be maintained. The people of Manchester are doing well by their

own efforts, in spite of the council. But, my God, it is a close-run thing.

Mr. David Winnick: I am sure that the people of Manchester are fair enough to recognise that their council is doing a first-class job in the face of Tory cuts. If there were a referendum in Manchester, I am sure that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) would get his reply. Indeed, the fact that there is a large Labour majority on the council is a sufficient answer to the unfair point that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I wish to raise three matters. We shall be starting the Summer Recess when the economic situation is getting even worse. The recession in the economy is deepening, as the Secretary of State for Industry admitted at Question Time today. The right hon. Gentleman suggested that it was due to overseas factors, but that was not quite what we heard before the general election.
We have the worst unemployment level since before the war. All the indications and forecasts are that it will get much worse. We have nearly 2 million registered unemployed, and one wonders what the number will be when the House returns on 27 October. The House should be concerned about the industrial and economic situation and I hope that if things get worse the Government will recall Parliament.
Unemployment is spreading throughout the country. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) have already referred to the situation in the West Midlands, that once prosperous industrial region where, even in pre-war days, families from the worst-hit parts of Britain were able to find employment. Today, there are redundancies, decline, depression and pessimism in the West Midlands. Most of that has arisen since the Government came to office.
Between 1 April and 30 June this year, more than 12,500 redundancies were officially announced. We are often reminded by Government spokesmen of the number of trade unionists who voted Tory at the election. I concede that that is true, but I doubt whether many trade unionists,


certainly in my part of the world, would be so keen to vote again for a party that has brought back a level of unemployment that we have not seen for 40 years.
A chamber of commerce survey in the borough of Walsall showed that 48 per cent. of firms in the area plan to make workers redundant in the next three months. The survey showed that only 19 per cent. of businesses were working at full capacity. A total of 50 per cent. of companies in the town were losing orders and 58 per cent. will have a decreased turnover next year.
It is understandable that the local chamber of commerce, which is not necessarily the strongest defender of my party, has said that it wants a change in Government policy. It is particularly keen to see a sharp reduction in interest rates. When one also takes into account the present value of the pound one can appreciate why it is difficult to export successfully.
I make no excuse for referring to my town before the House is asked to approve the motion to rise for the recess. There are nearly 11,000 out of work in Walsall—an unemployment rate of 9·7 per cent.—and the number of vacancies totals 170.
It is understandable that we should be concerned about unemployment nationally and how it affects our own people. It is all very well to quote statistics, but translated into human terms unemployment means despair, poverty and humiliation for thousands of our constituents. One of the best reforms of post-war years was the elimination of the sort of unemployment that the country had to suffer before the war. We now see the return of what I can describe only as near-mass unemployment. The Government have got us into that situation.
The second matter that I wish to raise relates to The Observer. It has been announced that the paper intends to close on 19 October, a week or so before we return from the recess. I do not want to go into the details of the dispute, but the Government, and certainly the Secretary of State for Employment, have a duty to intervene if it seems that the newspaper is definitely to close.
The management of The Observer has not said that it will be willing to sell

the paper or the title. It has said only that the paper will close if the dispute cannot be resolved.
There are many occasions when I do not agree with the editorial policy of The Observer. However, it would be most unfortunate to lose such a serious and informative paper. In view of that, every step should be taken by the Secretary of State for Employment, by the use of his good offices and the conciliation and arbitration machinery, to ensure that the paper does not close.
The final matter that concerns me is the sale of arms to Chile. I hope that we shall not be told that this is necessary to help resolve our own unemployment difficulties. The level of unemployment will not be altered by exporting arms to a tyranny such as the Chilean junta. My first concern in this matter relates to the Leader of the House and the way in which the decision was announced. One would have thought that a controversial decision such as lifting the arms embargo on Chile would have been announced in the House. Instead, the news came in answer to a written question.
The Leader of the House has often told us that apart from his obvious responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister and a senior member of the Government, he has duties and responsibilities to the House itself. On such a controversial matter as permitting the resumption of arms sales to Chile, in my view the Leader of the House should have made sure that a statement was made in the Chamber. I consider it rather contemptible and cowardly to treat the House in this manner. It is a controversial matter. Whatever one may think of the rights or wrongs of it, it certainly is wrong that such a controversial decision should be announced in an offhand manner in reply to what may well have been a planted written question.
I raised the matter when we discussed the Adjournment motion for the Easter Recess. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) made his own comments at the time, as he will remember.
We have had no chance to debate the decision before rising for the Summer Recess. Obviously I consider the decision to be quite wrong. However, I should


like to consider the manner in which the Government took the decision to resume arms sales to Chile.
On 10 March of this year, the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence said in another place during exchanges about arms sales to Chile that the Government would not export arms to a country which was guilty of torture. The noble Lord said during the same exchanges that arms would not be sold to what would be regarded by the Government as repressive regimes. That, he said, was the clear policy of the present Government.
Is there any doubt that torture and repression occur in Chile? The Government seem to believe that they do, because last December they voted for a United Nations General Assembly resolution condemning the increased use of torture in Chile.
The Government have recognised the state of affairs. In answer to a question about Chile on 7 February, after the resolution had been debated in the General Assembly, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) asked about it, and a Foreign Office Minister replied:
We are aware of the view expressed in this report that the rate of the improvement in the human rights situation has slowed considerably during the past year. Our concern was evident from our vote in favour of a recent United Nations General Assembly resolution. The return of an ambassador to Chile"—
the Minister was attempting to justify the decision—
will assist us in making Her Majesty's Government's views known to the Chilean Government at the highest level."—[Official Report, 7 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 310.]
No one can deny that since the officers—the band of traitors who now rule Chile—overthrew political democracy in 1973 in the notorious coup, many people have been tortured, including a British citizen, Dr. Sheila Cassidy. Indeed, it was as a result of her torture that the last Government decided rightly to withdraw our ambassador from that country. Although I am opposed totally to an ambassador from Britain being sent to Chile, at least the Government have some justification on the basis that we have diplotac relations with many countries to whose views we are opposed. However, permitting arms to be sold to what—even in

the Government's mind, judging by the way that they acted at the United Nations last December—is a regime which bases itself on repression and torture is an admission of the worst type of hypocrisy.
The Prime Minister often boasts of her commitment to human rights. Repeatedly she says at Question Time how much in favour of human rights she is, albeit that usually she is referring to Eastern Europe. She cites the action that she took over the Olympics. In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I am extremely critical of violations of human rights in Eastern Europe. Those who know my views and have heard me speak on the subject will know that I am no defender of repression in Eastern Europe. But at least I am consistent. I do not justify the resumption of arms sales to a tyranny such as Chile. That is why the Prime Minister is guilty of the worst type of hypocrisy, in common with other members of her Government.
The need is clear. It is to permit this House to debate this very important matter before rising for the Summer Recess. As I have said, the Leader of the House has not carried out his duties to this House. It is because I feel so strongly about the matter that I urge that a proper statement be made to the House even at this late hour. I do not want any statement in reply to this debate. I have no doubt that a suitable brief will be supplied to the Leader of the House. There should be a proper statement to the House from the Lord Privy Seal or from the Prime Minister.
To those three issues, therefore—the high level of unemployment, the difficulties of The Observer newspaper and, even more importantly, the sale of arms to Chile—I urge that the House should give serious consideration before we rise for the Summer Recess.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Mr. John Wells. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to remain seated, that will be quite in order.

Mr. John Wells: I wish to raise a matter which in my view should be debated before right hon. and hon. Members go away for the Summer Recess, namely, the conduct of the


Southern water authority in particular and the activities in general of the entire water authority system.
At the beginning of business today, the Southern water authority presented a small and innocuous Bill to which I objected, not because I was against the whole Bill but because one of its provisions was offensive. The Bill is entitled:
An Act to dissolve the Commissioners for the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Works and the Shoreham and Lancing Sea Defence Commissioners; to confer further powers on the Southern Water Authority; and for other purposes.
Considering the activities of the Southern water authority, in my constituency and elsewhere in the South of England, I believe that it might have been a great deal better if a Bill had been presented at 2.30 today entitled
An Act to dissolve the Southern Water Authority and to confer further powers on the Newhaven and Seaford Sea Defence Works Commissioners.
I can see no reason why the Newhaven and Seaford sea defence commissioners could not run the Southern water authority a great deal more cheaply and a great deal more efficiently.
The sad fact is that under the 1972 Act the Newhaven and Seaford commissioners will vanish, anyway, quite apart from this little Bill. Therefore, the offensive item in the Bill is that it gives fresh powers to the Southern water authority.
I understand that under clause 12 pensions are to be paid to two gentlemen currently employed by the Newhaven and Seaford commissioners who already are past the age of retirement. They are to get compensation.
We live in an era of Government restriction. It is my belief that all these matters should be aired throughly before we go away for three months. It seems to me that the Southern water authority management is grossly overstaffed and unsympathetic to our constituents. I am glad to see so many hon. Members from my part of England in their places. They will be aware of the problems faced by our constituents. In particular, the Southern water authority has been sending out direct billing to people, threatening to cut off their water supply if they do not pay, including people to whom the authority does not even supply water. That seems to be demanding money by

false pretences, because it would not be able to carry out its threat anyway.
I have a pathetic letter from a constituent who was worried that his water supply would be cut off because he had not paid something which, in truth, he had paid. I admit that the chief executive of the water authority wrote a grovelling letter of apology, as well he might. He had still frightened my innocent constituent, who had paid in April and was threatened in July and into August. This is not good enough. Such bullying tactics should be brought before the House.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will not seek to reply tonight, but will speak quietly but firmly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to ensure that all water authorities are brought more closely under the control of the House, if not before the recess at least soon after we come back.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Before adjourning for the recess, the House may care to note that the Transport Act 1980 was given its Third Reading on 25 March. I understand that the provision to permit car sharing by private motorists is to become effective on 6 October 1980. However, the Act does not apply to Northern Ireland and the Minister responsible for such matters in Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), has stated that he intends to seek a suitable opportunity to promote similar legislation in Northern Ireland. The House could be forgiven for wondering why it should be necessary to wait for what the Minister calls "a suitable opportunity" before bringing the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain. One might have thought that an ideal opportunity occurred when the Bill was drafted.
As hon. Members prepare to depart for the Summer Recess, I invite them to reflect over the next three months on how they could spare themselves much waste of time and loss of sleep if they persuaded those who manage the business of the House to end the farce of devoting 1½ hours, usually in the middle of the night, to consideration of a Northern Ireland order that repeats, in


slightly different form, sometimes in identical form, the Great Britain Bill that made the order necessary.
During those three months, a gap will be created between the law in Great Britain and that in Northern Ireland. It will be a gap that could affect United Kingdom citizens in a real and perhaps costly fashion. Many motorists in Northern Ireland to whom I have spoken are under the impression that the legislation will apply automatically to the whole of the United Kingdom. Many citizens of Great Britain, moving, perhaps temporarily, to Northern Ireland, will naturally assume that this innovation, which has attracted more interest, for example, than an obscure clause in a social security Act, applies to the United Kingdom. They will say "Did not Parliament, which governs the whole kingdom, solemnly debate and approve the new provisions? Did we not read about it in all the papers?" The newspapers, naturally, will not have informed their English, Scottish and Welsh readers that one part of the country has so far been excluded.
I need not take up the time of the House to list the many and varied traps into which otherwise law-abiding citizens may fall in the interval that will elapse before the Minister finds what he calls a suitable opportunity. Those citizens have a right to be protected against the possibility of their incurring serious liabilities. The House cannot adjourn and leave this trap for the innocent and the unwary. The Government will have to display a much greater sense of urgency than that shown so far by the Leader of the House. In his reply to my question last Thursday, the right hon. Gentleman simply indicated that his right hon. Friend intends to introduce legislation, adding
we shall avoid any unnecessary delay.—[Official Report, 31 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1735.]
There ought not to be any delay. Any delay, never mind unnecessary delay, could have been avoided if the Government had legislated originally for the kingdom as a whole. Their failure to do so saddles them with a responsibility to ensure that such an important alteration in the law becomes operative simultaneously throughout the United Kingdom. I trust that before the debate ends the

Leader of the House will be in a position to assure hon. Members that steps will be taken by the Government to ensure that the law on this important matter is made effective on the same date throughout the entire area for which the House legislates.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I agree entirely with his appeal to the Government for the universal application of legislation throughout the United Kingdom.
I wish to raise the matter of the difficulties of the United Kingdom paper and board industry. I begin by declaring an interest. I have worked in and for the United Kingdom paper and board industry since 1974 and still continue to do so in a small way. The paper and board industry is a heavy capital-intensive industry. There are about 150 pulp, paper, and board mills, employing about 60,000 people and producing 4·2 million tonnes of paper and board. The mills are largely concentrated in North Kent, London, the Home Counties, Lancashire and central Scotland.
The problems affecting the paper and board industry are the problems currently affecting many industries in the country—high inflation, a strong currency, high interest rates and high energy costs. I believe that we should debate the plight of this industry—the matter has not been debated in this Session—before the Summer Recess. A number of questions relating to the industry need answering.
I should like first to examine the question of import penetration of the United Kingdom market. In 1976, imports took 45·2 per cent. of the market. In 1979, the figure had risen to nearly 50 per cent. Tariffs on paper and board were swiftly harmonised after the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community. Zero rating was reached in mid-1977.
From 1976, imports of paper and board from France, Germany and the Netherlands into the United Kingdom, based on the new productive capacity installed in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, began to grow substantially. The figures are revealing. Imports from France rose from 34,000 tonnes in 1976 to 130,000 tonnes in 1979, an increase of 253 per cent. The


equivalent figures for West Germany were 73,000 tonnes to 155,000 tonnes, an increase of 95 per cent.; for the Netherlands, 69,000 tonnes to 114,000 tonnes, an increase of 50 per cent. The percentage increase for Italy was 125 per cent. In that period, total imports from the EEC rose from 244,000 tonnes to 526,000 tonnes, an increase of about 100 per cent.
The comparison with other countries is striking. Imports from Sweden went up by 6 per cent., Finland by 1 per cent. and Norway by 20 per cent. Imports from Austria fell by 12 per cent. and from Canada by 16 per cent.
There are several reasons for thee dramatic figures. One difficulty is that the United Kingdom industry uses a high percentage of energy and has to pay a high cost for it. It is difficult for Members of Parliament to get the most up-to-date figures from Ministers at the Department of Energy, but I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government believe that United Kingdom energy costs should be competitive with those of the other EEC countries. Once that is established, we can start to look at the facts.
According to the facts that I have, there is a remarkable disparity of costs between a typical small United Kingdom paper mill and its equivalent overseas competitors. In July 1980, it cost £49·70 a tonne for energy to produce paper in the United Kingdom; £35·60 in West Germany; £33·20 in France: £23·90 in the United States; and £14·80 in Canada. As a result, the German product is 4 per cent. cheaper than the United Kingdom product, the French is 4·7 per cent. cheaper, the American is 7·3 per cent. cheaper and the Canadian is 9·9 per cent. cheaper.
I should like to give some examples of the difficulties faced by paper and board mills in the United Kingdom. The firm of Portals Limited makes our banknotes. There is no shortage of demand for money, yet foreign competitors can now undercut our prices for banknotes and high security papers by up to 25 per cent. Following the 50 per cent. increase in gas prices in 1978 and again in 1979, energy costs now represent an alarming 78 per cent. of total variable costs of production for that firm. Its associated companies abroad can now sell bank

paper at lower prices than the United Kingdom mill can produce it.
Another example is Bible papers for religious publications. Imports from France are 20 per cent. cheaper than the domestic product and will undoubtedly cause short-time working in the second half of 1980.
Reed Paper and Board (United Kingdom) Limited makes 16 per cent. of all paper and board produced in this country. Over the last three and a half years, when the retail price index has risen by about 54 per cent., because of good investment and good profitability. Reed's total costs have risen by only 24 per cent., but over the same period the percentage of energy content in total costs has risen from 12 to 21.
In addition. Reed pays £3·2 million at the current annual rate to the Customs and Excise on heavy fuel oil. It should be remembered that Reed sells newsprint. The selling price of Canadian newsprint in dollars has risen from 100 to 154 over these three and a half years, but its price in the United Kingdom in pounds has actually fallen, from 100 to 99. The Government could help the beleagured paper and board industry immediately by considering the removal of the Excise duty on heavy fuel oil for industry.
Another firm, TPT Limited, has had its margins cut, particularly by high oil and gas prices. That company finds it ridiculous that oil should be priced 16·2 per cent. higher at British mills—£97·20 a tonne—than at TPT's German board mill, where it is currently £83·63.
I will give just one more example to end with—that of a good, medium-sized paper and board firm with a turnover of £12 million. It exports 70 per cent. of its product, of which 70 per cent. is sold for dollars. That mill has suffered severely from the strengthening of the pound. It has lost £20,000 in profit for every cent that the pound has strengthened against the dollar. Thus, with the pound strengthening to the equivalent of 20 cents of the American dollar, that firm has lost £400,000. In addition, the company has been investing in what is a high technology product and has to find £450,000 in interest annually. A reduction of 5 per cent. in interest rates would give the company relief of over £100,000,


but that would not offset the £400,000 lost in export profit.
I should like to deal now with board mills. Since 1976, sterling has strengthened in real terms by 27 per cent. against the dollar, 15 per cent. against the deutschemark and 25 per cent. against the Swedish krone. This has allowed imported boards to enter the United Kingdom from those countries at prices well below those of British boards, so that imports have now secured nearly 40 per cent. of some markets. United Kingdom board mills are making losses and some have, regrettably, already closed. If this trend continues, most mills will close within two years. Not even the most modern and efficient units, with low labour costs, can withstand that sort of pressure.
For example, the costs of German mills are expected to rise by 8 per cent. over the next year, but those of United Kingdom mills may rise by 15 per cent. That will have a devastating effect on the United Kingdom's prices and profitability. In the absence of any weakening of the pound, and assuming no further strengthening, the only solution is to bring cost increases below 5 per cent. in the next 12 months and to maintain them at that level thereafter.
Costs in the public sector and other factors under Government control are major obstacles to that achievement. The costs of energy, posts, rail transport and rates are expected to increase by an average of about 25 per cent. over the next 12 months. That will affect about 20 per cent. of mill costs and will directly increase overall costs by about 5 per cent. The effect is also felt indirectly via supplies and services, adding about another 1 per cent. to mill costs. Overall the public sector will cause board making costs in the United Kingdom to rise by 10 per cent. thus making it quite impossible to achieve the inflation rate of 5 per cent. at which survival is possible.
Faced with that situation we must have straight answers from the Government about what will be done to help the United Kingdom paper and board industry. The Government must act quickly. They must examine energy costs to ensure, at best, that they are no higher than the lowest in the EEC and that they are equal at worst. Other public sector costs

should not rise by more than 10 per cent. in the next 12 months. If possible it should be less. The Government must consider the abolition of the national insurance surcharge.
I accept, as does the industry, that the main thrust of Government policy is to bring down the rate of inflation. As soon as that is achieved interest rates must come down to single figures and must be kept there as long as possible.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman please explain to the House what measures he is advocating in the context of energy pricing?

Mr. Proctor: I am advocating that the Department of Energy, spurred on by the Department of Industry, should agree what these costs are. It is extraordinary that those Departments produce figures which are out of date and also at odds with the figures given by the United Kingdom paper and board makers.
First, we must find the true figures and get them clear in our minds and get them accepted by the Government. Thereafter, we must ask the Government whether, if those figures reveal what we anticipate, namely, that the United Kingdom energy costs are higher than those of our EEC competitors, they will suggest to the EEC that energy costs should be harmonised throughout the Community. Will the Government examine the possibility of reducing prices to industry as opposed to all consumers of energy? As I understand it, that cannot be done under present legislation. I hope that I have in part answered the question of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours).

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Proctor: I had better proceed. Other hon. Members are waiting to speak. I recognise that not every hon. Member has a paper or board mill in his constituency. However, more than 100 hon. Members do have such mills in their areas. For that reason it is right that I raise these matters now.
We heard at Question Time today of the problems of the newsprint industry. I have one question for the Leader of the House on the Government's attitude to that industry. Does he see a future for


the industry, and should it continue on security grounds? We are in great danger of finding, in the not too distant future, that there will be no capacity for producing newsprint in the United Kingdom.
The duty-free quota system, which enables the bulk of paper and board imports from EFTA countries—non-EEC candidate countries—to enter the United Kingdom free of all duty, began in 1974. It ends on 31 December 1983, when all EEC and EFTA countries become a duty-free market for paper and board products—duty, once the quotas are exceeded, having come down from 8 per cent. in 1978 to 6 per cent. in 1979– 80, to 4 per cent. in 1981– 82 and to 2 per cent. in 1983. Duty at those levels is charged on all EFTA imports into Europe, excluding the United Kingdom. These quotas are reviewed each year. It was thought that Her Majesty's Government might negotiate a framework for these quotas from now until 1984 [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). He has a perfect right to mention any subject he likes on the Adjournment motion. However, I think I should remind him that he will have a further opportunity to discuss this specific matter in a later debate.

Mr. Proctor: I am coming to a brisk conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I notice that some hon. Members who are heckling have not been present during the whole of the debate, as I have.
The issue of duty-free quotas will not be settled while the House is sitting and I wish to get the points cleared up by the Government. The quotas will be negotiated some time in October and the stance will be taken some time in September. My point is that the Department of Trade should not give way in any respect in those negotiations and that quotas should not be increased for paper and board imports except in a few instances.
It might seem churlish if I did not end my remarks by wishing Ministers a happy recess and by expressing the hope that the next Gracious Speech does not contain as many legislative proposals as the last one.

Mr. Frank R. White: I speak against the motion. We should not go into a long summer recess, for many of the reasons expounded by the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). However, my analysis of the situation, as my hon. Friends might expect differs from that of the hon. Gentleman.
I have little hesitation, and much less shame, in declaring a personal interest in this subject, though it is not an interest from which I am likely to gain financially from any successful outcome. My interest is that of a Member who represents many people who will suffer extreme hardship and financial loss should the outcome be different from the one we hope for.
If the United Kingdom paper and board industry goes the way of the other industries that we have debated in the past it is extremely likely that I shall be forced to stand by while a large part of my constituency dies with that industry. My constituency has within its boundaries more paper mills than any other constituency. The area has the heaviest concentration of paper and associated industries in Europe, but I realise that if the industry dies I shall not be on my own.
As I survey the list of hon. Members whose constituencies also play host to the paper industry—not the least of them being that of the hon. Member for Basildon—I envisage that the boat will be quite full. However, I confess to great trepidation. When I recall the hard faces of Government Ministers and when I remember the parsimonious attitude of the Prime Minister to the problem of unemployment I see little reason to hope. I see few signs of optimism and I greatly fear that, in the final analysis, I shall be faced with the usual ostrich-like posture where the Government offer nothing but sea and sand. They will offer platitudes and display a depth of ignorance that makes hon. Members feel that on matters related to manufacturing industry an attempt at dialogue with the Government is like attempting a dialogue with the deaf.
The United Kingdom paper and board industry plays a major role in the life of the country and the industry must be the


immediate concern of the whole nation. If, for any reason, the industry nationally were to decline further, the unemployment level in my constituency, already suffering from Government policy, would become disastrous.
Considerable concern for the future is now being felt by all sectors of the industry. With related industries in printing, publishing and packaging, the paper and board industry constitutes 8·3 per cent of the manufacturing contribution to the gross domestic product. It currently employs over 5,000 people in all sectors and onward processes. It is therefore time that we in the House—and that includes the Government, who have been so hardhearted to other sections of industry—showed our concern about what is happening.
If the Government are not impressed by any other fact, perhaps they will be impressed by the knowledge that the United Kingdom industry contributed about £1·25 billion to the balance of payments in 1979. Since the early 1960s the overall performance of the industry has been disappointing compared with the achievements of the industries in other Western European countries. During those years unfair competition created by the EFTA-EEC tariff imbalance disastrously affected most of the United Kingdom manufacturers. Between 1969 and 1974, 21 mills closed down and 51 machines did likewise, causing a loss of 20,000 jobs. When I refer to a paper machine, hon. Members must not envisage something like a small lathe. A paper machine would fill the Chamber.
It became almost impossible for those mills that were left to make a profit in certain grades of paper. It therefore became necessary for them to change course and to integrate in order to compete. This led to the old familiar lack of capital investment while competitors invested heavily in large, technologically more advanced, machines. We were left to modernise and make do. The exception to that trend came as a result of the actions of that Labour Government, which provided £23 million of selective financial aid. That scheme generated nearly £100 million of investment. Much of today's investment is the result of that scheme coming to fruition.
A new threat to the United Kingdom industry is looming in the United States. The immense scale and low cost of production in North America will increasingly constitute a long-term problem. United States capacity has been increased from 51 million to 62·5 million metric tonnes in less than 10 years. It is planned to increase it further, to 68 million metric tonnes by 1982. So far, home consumption in the United States has matched capacity, but with the drop in domestic demand caused by the world-wide recession leading to substantial over-capacity there is every possibility that the American industry will be seeking fresh fields to conquer. Therefore, with the threat looming of even greater penetration of the United Kingdom market, it is necessary to impress upon Ministers that it would need imports of only a tiny percentage of United States capacity to devastate the United Kingdom industry.
An illustration of the combined effects on the United Kingdom industry of American competition, based on cheap subsidised fuel, and a high value for sterling, was given by Mr. E. D. Peacock, director of the commercial division of the United Kingdom Paper and Board Industry. He explained by example. A corrugated case is made up of liners and flutings. Both can be made from virgin pulp or from recycled waste fibres. Most of the world's kraft liner is made from virgin pulp and is made in the United States and Scandinavia.
Most European countries have substantial capacity for the manufacture of liners based on waste. The selling price of waste-based liners depends entirely on the price of kraft liners, and that is dictated by the United States. In May 1978 the average price of kraft liners was $280. Even at that level it put the producers of waste-based liners in the United Kingdom under severe pressure. Since then kraft liners have risen to about $400—an apparent increase of $120, or 43 per cent. The real increase in sterling terms, however, is only 15 per cent. Since then the pound has increased in value against the dollar from $1·80 to $2·25. During the same period manufacturing costs have risen far more than 15 per cent., and even the index of packaging materials has gone up by over 22 per cent. It is not surprising, therefore, that margins are under even greater pressure.
Today I received a telex from a company in my constituency. For reasons that will become clear, it wishes to remain anonymous. I could make no greater criticism of the Government's response to that American threat than to quote what the company says on exchange and interest rates. On the former it says
An investment of £1·5 million in 1977–78 on plants produced for export with reasonable profit expectations based on the United States dollar at $1'80 to the pound. Now faced with American competition and the dollar at $2·35 to the pound the plant is not viable and has produced losses of £61,000 in the past 12 months with a current selling price in sterling no greater than that appertaining in 1977. Total exports for the first half of 1980 valued at £3,218,000, that is, 42 per cent. of total sales, but profitability is less than 5 per cent. as most prices have to be in US dollars to be competitive. The sterling price is only marginally higher than 1977.
On the subject of interest rates the company indicates that its current overdraft interest is £175,000 per annum. This has a significant impact on profits, which are currently running at £400,000, a return on capital employed of 2£5 per cent. That is a disaster for the industry. As with many other manufacturing industries, the Government's policies, combined with their refusal to assist our industry at the level that our competitors are assisted by their Governments, have put the paper and board industry in a precarious position.
Imports are penetrating the home market at alarming rates. In the subsector in which we held the largest share of the market—the printings and writings sector—the position has deteriorated. Recently the sector working party report concluded that the
UK printings and writings sector in general will slowly decline because of competitive pressures from overseas paper makers unless positive and constructive action is taken now.
Once again we must ask the Government whether they want a United Kingdom paper and board industry. They must make up their minds, and do so quickly. It is not enough for them to mouth platitudes and promises for the distant future. It is not enough for them to expect our industry to compete with highly efficient competitors who enjoy the massive benefits of Government subsidy. It is ludicrous that a nation that is almost floating on oil, built on coal and self-sufficient in energy should leave its paper and board industry to fight, un

assisted, competition based on cheap fuel. The workers in the paper industry in my constituency want to know whether they are as important to this Government as the American paper workers are to theirs.
In the telex to which I referred the company points out the problems of energy. It states:
As a percentage of total costs, energy has risen from 7½ per cent. in 1977 to 10·2 per cent. in 1980 per kilo of paper sold. The energy costs have risen by 105 per cent. over this period.
I doubt whether our Scandinavian and North American competitors have faced such an escalation in costs.
It is not as though the industry has not responded to the problems and changing circumstances. Management and unions have created a working relationship that could be held up as an example to others in manufacturing industry. The last official dispute that caused a strike in the industry was in 1926. Labour productivity is high. The union has always displayed a willingness to co-operate to obtain further improvements. On one occasion, in a paper mill in the North-West, given a deteriorating situation, the union accepted the challenge and brought before management schemes for improving productivity, which were accepted. The result was that productivity increased from 61 to 84 per cent. The contribution was acknowledged by the company and led to a prolonged life for the mill.
The threat to the United Kingdom paper and board industry is not the attitude of its workers but the political pricing policies of our North American and Scandinavian competitors, which control our basic raw material—wood pulp. They operate a scissor pricing technique—high-cost pulp against low-cost paper or vice versa, whichever suits them and depending on the United Kingdom market conditions. The Government's reply has been to allow Fort William to close, with the result that we have exported 1 million tonnes of United Kingdom timber to Scandinavia to be used against us.
The North Americans, with their cheap oil policy for industry, and the Scandinavians, with access to cheap hydro power, complete the tourniquet that is throttling our paper industry. This year six mills have closed and 5,000 jobs have been lost. With the potential threat from our


competitors, further mills may close. There are severe doubts about six other mills. It is possible that by the end of the year 20,000 jobs will be lost.
I hope that the Leader of the House will inform the Prime Minister that the problem has nothing to do with workers pricing themselves out of a job, introducing restrictive practices or refusing to introduce high technology. It is that the Government are unwilling to respond to the unfair pressures from our competitors and that we have to suffer the pressure of their domestic policies.
Before the House adjourns, the industry must be given an injection of confidence. I and many of my hon. Friends support selective import controls. Unfortunately the Government do not. Action over the exchange rates and interest rates also have to be ruled out, as is apparent from the economic blindness that the Government have shown when we have debated other manufacturing sectors. I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon that one answer is that there must be a commitment to assist industry with energy costs and to match our competitors pound for pound over their subsidies. That is the least that we can ask from the Government before the Summer Recess. We should then at least feel that we had given the paper industry a kiss of life. If the Government refuse to consider that, we shall be giving the industry a kiss of death.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The two previous speeches would have been more appropriately made in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It is an abuse of our procedures to make such speeches on the motion for the Adjournment. It is also unfair to hon. Members have drawn earlier places in the ballot.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I hope that I shall not abuse any procedures and that I shall not tire the House by raising a matter that I have raised on many occasions before.
Two weeks ago Wolverhampton area health authority, under pressure from the community medical authorities, reversed its earlier policy and recommended that the authority should proceed immediately to arrange the artificial fluoridation of the water suply in the area.

The effect of that decision is to remove the one block preventing the Severn-Trent water authority from fluoridating the whole region, including Staffordshire and Burton. At present artificial fluoridation is spread only around the Birmingham area.
So this fluoridation madness is apparently to go on unchecked by the Government—nay, encouraged by them. I believe that the House should not adjourn to the end of October without someone pressing on the Government yet again the need for a reconsideration of their policy. There should be at least a moratorium on fluoridation until a high-powered, independent committee, chaired by a High Court judge, decides on its safety and until Parliament, on its return, is allowed to decide on a free vote whether the water supply should have fluoride added to it.
The arguments against fluoridation are substantial, far more so than the evidence that it reduces tooth decay. It is not only that mass medication is a gross infringement of the liberty of the individual, since the consumer has no choice whether he will have it in his water, although that would be substantial enough. It is not only that the decision to fluoridate is taken by bodies that are not democratically elected and is too often made against the decision taken by democratically elected county or district councils, although that would be substantial enough. It is not only that eminent legal opinion has been given that water authorities have no lawful power to fluoridate, since doing so is ultra vires their powers, a matter which successive Governments have apparently accepted, because they offer an indemnity for action which is taken pursuant to fluoridation, although that, with a law abiding Government, should be substantial enough.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman says that successive Governments have accepted that. I assure him that he is quite wrong. If it is a fact, let it be tested in the courts.

Mr. Lawrence: I should welcome the matter being tested in the courts. I understand that it is now being tested in the courts, but I say that Governments have accepted that it may be unlawful, because they offer an indemnity for actions that are taken under that provision.
What gives rise to the need for urgency is the growth of a substantial body of evidence to the effect that fluoridation causes or precipitates cancer. That evidence is extremely well documented and thorough. After five years of attack by medical authorities, which have their reputations on the line, that evidence has not been refuted. It has been upheld by a court of law in Pennsylvania and a Government commission in Quebec. The evidence suggests that we are killing 2,000 or more people in Britain a year by artificially fluoridating 10 per cent. of our drinking water. That evidence was not properly considered or not considered at all by the Royal College of Physicians, which reported four and a half years ago. It is disgraceful that the medical authorities continue to refuse to consider the new evidence and that the Government continue to rely on an outdated report.

Mr. Keith Best: The former Attorney-General suggested that the matter should be tested in a court of law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to the question of ultra vires. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the medical aspects have been tested in a court of law? He himself drew attention to that. I refer to the Pennsylvania decision, where the matter was fully canvassed. The burden of proof was on those who were seeking to show that fluoridation was harmful. Notwithstanding that burden of proof, the learned judge upheld the case put forward to have the fluoridation removed from the water supply.

Mr. Lawrence: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for highlighting that decision. It was reached after a careful hearing, lasting five months, with evidence from the leading protagonists and antagonists in the world. The judge was overwhelmingly of the opinion that fluoridation was dangerous and that the case of those who advocated it should fail. I should welcome a court of law deciding this matter. It is difficult for the anti-fluoridation campaigners to raise the necessary money; it is easy for the Government to place the matter before a proper tribunal for consideration. There is no reason why those who are against fluoridation should not welcome a thorough investigation, and that is what I am calling for.
As chairman of the all-party anti-fluoridation committee in the House, I have from time to time, and most recently on 6 March, given chapter and verse for our reasons for calling for an end to this insanity, so I shall not delay the House by repeating that evidence. But on Tuesday last week, Dr. Dean Burk, who for 35 years was one of the chief cancer scientists at the National Cancer Institute of America, presented a paper at the Fourth International Symposium on the Prevention and Detection of Cancer at Wembley on the subject of fluoridation. He concluded that the fluoridation of Birmingham in 1964 was followed by a most alarming increase in the cancer death rate—greater than in any unfluoridated English city such as Liverpool, Leeds, Bristol, Manchester, Coventry, Sheffield or Greater London. In particular, there has been an otherwise unexplained increase in cancer deaths of about 8 per cent. in the Birmingham area when a similar city, Manchester, which was unfluoridated, increased by only 1·5 per cent.

Mrs. Sheila Faith: Was proper account taken of the ages of the people in Birmingham and was that not a factor in the increase in cancer at that time?

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend, by asking that question—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: The hon. Lady has shot the hon. Gentleman down.

Mr. Lawrence: —has highlighted the error that has been predominant in medical authorities over the past few years. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) said that my hon. Friend had shot me down. When I first raised this matter several years ago I was told that the findings in America had not been weighted for age, race and sex. All the combined efforts of the medical authorities to disprove the Burke-Yiammouiannis findings in America failed, and they rested on the criticism that the figures had not been weighted for age, race and sex. Burke and Yiammouiannis said that they had weighted them for age, race and sex.
A few weeks ago, I received an indication from the advisers to the Government that they were now satisfied that the


American figures had been weighted for age, race and sex. The answer to my hon. Friend is that the Birmingham analysis has also been weighted for age and sex. The only substantial criticism of the epidemiological study seems to have fallen to the ground.
There is much evidence that fluoride at one part per million induces cancers in insects and animals, and there is laboratory evidence as to how that happens. The epidemiological evidence from America has been vociferously challenged, but now that challenge has fallen to the ground and been shown and admitted to be now without foundation. Therefore, there is no valid challenge to the evidence that exists both in the United States and on the Birmingham figures.
Surely there is now more than a doubt about the safety of fluoridation. Surely there ought to be no more fluoridation until that doubt is at least resolved. Surely the Government should wake up to the fact that in this matter Britain is wholly out of step with other countries. None of our EEC partners except Eire fluoridates. There is no fluoridation in Austria, Greece, Norway or Spain. Belgium, Holland, Germany and Sweden did fluoridate but have now stopped, as have hundreds of cities in the United States.
Those who are being made to drink artificially fluoridated water against their wishes should not see Parliament going into recess for nearly three months without some undertaking from the Government that they are seriously considering a moratorium. On behalf of all whose freedom and health are threatened by this madness, I ask the Government for that undertaking.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess, it is important to consider a problem featured in many of our inner city areas, namely, the problem of derelict land, often owned by local authorities. I fully appreciate that the recent cuts in public expenditure will make it more difficult for local government to cope with the difficulties of derelict land. Such land is dangerous, especially in inner city areas, where children play on it.
I refer in particular to a 26-acre site in my constituency called the Wandsworth gas works site, which is owned by the Greater London Council. Last Saturday afternoon there was a tragedy on that site. A small boy was drowned in fairly deep water in the bottom of a derelict gas holder. I watched him being pulled out by police frogmen. That site was unfenced along part of the perimeter. The GLC was warned by me and by others some time ago that there were dangers in allowing that land to remain unfenced.
There is a central Government responsibility, both through legislation and in terms of support and encouragement, for local authorities to take action on such sites. Primarily, I accept that the responsibility is that of the Greater London Council, which can only be judged to have been negligent and to have failed in its responsibilities.
In 1977 the Department of the Environment sent out circular 17/77 called "Derelict Land". Under the heading "Safety Measures", it states:
The treatment of derelict land often needs to be undertaken in the interests of public safety. Water hazards are especially dangerous and lives have been lost because of the special attraction they have for children. … Local authorities are asked to give special consideration to schemes which will eliminate safety hazards from derelict land.
The Wandsworth site has been in a dangerous condition for some years. It has been derelict for about 15 years. Originally it was earmarked for housing and industry. The Department of the Environment then allocated the site to the GLC rather than to the Wandsworth borough council, I think because it was felt that the GLC would need it for extra housing as a result of properties being lost through the building of the motorway box. Subsequently doubts arose because of pollution on the site. There was a change in the political control of the GLC, and a new proposal was put forward that the site should be used for a sports complex—a type of astrodome. The failure of successful tenders for this development meant that the intentions for the site reverted to industry and housing. Indeed, until the middle of last week it had been thought that the site would be part of an enterprise zone to be created in Wandsworth. The Secretary of State for the Environment turned that


down, but the proposal that the site should be used for industry and housing remains.
For 15 years this site has been derelict and dangerous. Despite many warnings, not only from me but from many other people, no action has been taken by the local authority. I have today written to the GLC asking that immediate action be taken to safeguard the site and that there be an inquiry into why the local authority failed to take any action to safeguard it. I appreciate that we cannot say or do anything today which will make up for the tragedy of a child's death, but we may be able to prevent a similar tragedy from occurring.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: It is scandalous that the Government should suggest that the House should go into three months' recess with areas such as the Northern region in such a plight that if the region had a provincial government and governor a state of emergency would already have been declared. The Northern region had 157,200 people unemployed at the last count. God knows what it will be at the next one. That is the highest rate in Great Britain.
In the city of Newcastle, part of which I have the honour to represent, there are nearly 16,500 unemployed. The level of unemployment there has been persistently high for far too long, and the people whom I represent have a right to demand some action from the Government to alleviate the position. Newcastle now has 3,700 more people unemployed since the Government came to power—which represents 231 more walking the streets for each month of their tenure of office. Hundreds more of our people in Newcastle are doomed to despair every month. Several hundred unskilled workers have for some time chased one vacancy. That is increasingly becoming the case in relation to both skilled and unskilled workers. For example, on Tyneside in June, there were 656 unemployed platers and no vacancies, 632 unemployed welders and one vacancy, 14,835 unemployed labourers and 32 vacancies, 2,878 unemployed clerks and 106 vacancies, 586 unemployed fitters and 10 vacancies. That is the magnitude of the problem that Tyneside faces.
The city council is doing all that it can, and it will continue 20 take whatever steps it can to generate employment in the city, including help to small firms. But clearly, if any major improvements are to take place, we need Government action this side of a three-month recess. The Government must act by bringing forward major construction schemes, such as the building of the city western bypass, and by major Government orders which can be placed in the city. For example, the Ministry of Defence could play a major part by giving badly needed work to Vickers Elswick works and new naval orders to Tyneside shipyards.
Instead of threatening the inner city partnership, which is what the Secretary of State for the Environment has been doing for the last three months, why not widen its scope? The city's initiative on the proposed combined heat and power scheme should be pursued with determination, instead of the same Secretary of State pouring cold water on the project. The city's employment pattern has undergone a major change in recent years, including a decline in manufacturing employment and in the number of private and public services. My constituency alone has been devastated by the close of Tress Engineering and Vickers Scotswood works. As a result of the dependence on major manufacturing firms—half of all our jobs are provided by only four firms—we are in a vulnerable position, because half the number of manufacturing jobs are in the traditional engineering and shipbuilding industries, which are suffering world-wide contraction with no sign of any improvement in the immediate future.
It is estimated that 15,000 manufacturing jobs in Newcastle are entirely dependent on central Government, either as a result of direct ownership or their procurement policy. I hope, therefore, that no one will accuse me of overstating the case for Government Departments getting off their backsides if Newcastle is not to slide further into the morass. I could use much stronger language.
The most important issue in the Northern region concerns the Secretary of State for Industry's lack of will to generate an effective regional policy. The area's traditional industries have been helped by a strong regional policy, but the Government's public expenditure


White Paper indicates that total expenditure on trade, industry, energy and employment is budgeted to fall by 40 per cent. over the next three financial years. As a result of more stringent criteria applied to applicants for selective assistance to industry in development areas of the North, assistance will be cut back by about 40 per cent. Section 8 selective assistance is also to be cut back, and will be more selective than ever before, at a time when there is a need to be less selective and to relax the criteria in the special development areas. That is apparent to all but this woeful Government. From next year on there will be reductions in ACAS of 11 per cent., and of 13 per cent. in the Manpower Services Commission by 1983–84. Industrial training is to be cut back by killing off courses and rationalising skillcentres.
On top of all the hardship that is already being suffered by the unemployed, we must consider the Government's Budget proposals to tax unemployment benefit and other short-term national insurance and invalidity benefits. For the next two years, as an interim measure, the Government have decided to uprate benefits by 5 per cent. less than their estimate of price inflation. A reduction in the real value of benefits will surely have the greatest effect on the poorest who are already below the tax threshold. It should be fairly obvious to any thinking person that price inflation hits lower-income groups harder than anyone else, because they spend a much higher proportion of their income on the necessities of life, and the costs of basic necessities show a sharper increase in price than the average range of the retail price index.
The Government's estimate of price inflation is only 16½ per cent., while actual inflation is more than 21 per cent. Therefore, the cut in benefits will be nearer 10 per cent. than the 5 per cent. which the Government suggest. In a period such as this it is nothing short of scandalous to cut the real incomes of the disabled and the leng-term sick. The proposed reductions in real terms will of necessity increase the number eligible for supplementary benefit. We all know that about 25 per cent. of those entitled to supplementary benefit fail to claim, so further hardship is bound to follow—hardship on top of hardship. The same

can be said about the abolition of the earnings related supplement. Here, a married man on average earnings with one child could be more than £9 a week poorer.
Last weekend I spent some time with Tom Burlison, the regional secretary of the General and Municipal Workers Union, discussing the unemployment situation in the region. He produced for me a schedule of six foolscap sheets of figures, outlining a list of 77 firms in the union's northern region which by redundancy, closure or liquidation account for a loss of members to the union of no less than 2,301 since the Government took office. I know that the Government are not too fond of trade unions, but surely that is a desperate way in which to cut down trade union membership.
Mr. Burlison also produced some figures for apprenticeships which, frankly, appalled me. In 1975, Baker Perkins took on 19 apprentices, but the firm will take on only 12 this year. The National Coal Board, mining and engineering section, took on 32 apprentices in 1975 but will take on only 18 this year. Northern Gas, for which I used to work, took on 66 apprentices in 1975 and plans to take on 52 this year. N.E.I. Reyrolles took on 32 apprentices in 1975, but not one apprentice will be starting this year. Tyne Ship Repair took on 55 apprentices in 1975, and only 29 will start this year.
That is tragic, because the apprentices of today are the craftsmen of tomorrow. As sure as night follows day—some time we shall climb out of the recession—we shall need skilled people. It is clear that the training of apprentices should be placed in the hands of the Government, perhaps through the MSC, which would ensure that when the upturn arrives we shall have the skilled workers that the Northern region so badly needs.
There are currently closures and redundancies within the traditional industries, such as shipbuilding, in the region, and the problem is that people are being given time limits in which to produce certain levels of productivity. When used in this way, time limits can only reduce the morale of the work force and adversely affect productivity.
The constant threat that the workers in the shipbuilding industry have hanging


over their heads in relation to the denationalisation or the privatisation of naval shipbuilding can only have further depressing effects on morale and efficiency in the industry. Let me say to the Leader of the House that while the Government, on making these announcements, prattle that they have a mandate from the country to indulge in privatisation, and so on, there is certainly no mandate for denationalisation of naval shipbuilding if the end result means that we cannot possibly carry on a competitive merchant shipbuilding industry.
Even the most die-hard Tory in the country could not put his hand on his heart and say that he had voted to give the Government a mandate to deprive the country of any merchant shipbuilding capacity in the future, but that is exactly what will happen if the naval shipbuilding yards are denationalised.
Unemployment in the Northern region is not only higher than in any other region in Great Britain; it is higher than in many other countries. Eire has 66,000 unemployed—not one-third of that in our region. Greece has 49,000, Austria 91,000 and Sweden 94,000. I could go on retailing the figures from countries which have less unemployment than we have as a region of the United Kingdom.
I suppose that I ought to be grateful that Newcastle and Gateshead are to have an enterprise zone. However, I should like to quote from a letter that I have received this afternoon from the manufacturing manager of Glass Bulbs Limited. The letter is from Lemington Glassworks, Newcastle upon Tyne, and the manager pleads for the enterprise zone to be extended westward to include Lemington and the Stanners trading estate at New-burn, where there are ample opportunities for people because of empty advance factories standing there waiting for industries to go in. In making his plea, he says:
We are now operating with 130 less employees than 1st January 1979 and we are losing a further 96 by 4th October this year. With the latest assesment of our business we could have shed another 70–90 before the end of the year, it is really depressing, leaving us with a total work force of 390/400 compared with 700 on 1st January 1979. With the closure of Consett, which seems to be going through, it can be argued that any development on either side of the river to the east or west of Scotswood Bridge would help to absorb some of this labour; commuting between Consett and Scotswood would be possible.

The problem has been manifest in the announcement of the enterprise zone. I hope that we shall do well from it, but, broadly speaking, I think that the concept will export unemployment from one area of Tyneside to another.

Mr. James Kilfedder: An hon. Member attacked the United States of America for subsidising the paper and board industry to the detriment of its counterpart in the United Kingdom, but it is not the only American industry which engages in unfair competition with industry in our country.
The United States seems to put profits and votes before its international friends. As for the special relationship which exists between the United States and the United Kingdom, that seems to be one-way traffic. The United States likes to make use of the United Kingdom whenever it wishes to bring pressure to bear on other countries. It wishes to turn the United Kingdom into a launching pad for a new generation of missiles.
The United States shows hostility from time to time against the United Kingdom—as, for example, when it fails effectively to stop the flow of arms and ammunition from the United States to the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland. It does nothing to expose the lies on which the IRA propaganda in the United States is based, or to enable people in the United States to realise that innocent people—civilians as well as members of the security forces—in Northern Ireland are being slaughtered by bullets and bombs often bought by money contributed by sympathisers in the United States.
Bearing in mind the position in Ulster, I am opposed to the House adjourning for a long Summer Recess. Hon. Members will go off to their homes, to their constituencies, or on holiday, and will be able to come back here after the recess thinking, perhaps, only of unemployment in Great Britain. But in that intervening period, many people will be slaughtered in Northern Ireland by the Provisional IRA. Many people will suffer grievous wounds and be gruesomely mutilated by the actions of the Provisional IRA. It is wrong for this House to adjourn for a long recess without bearing in mind what


innocent people will have to sustain, together with the courageous members of the security forces.
It is now about two months since the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland launched the White Paper on constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland, yet nothing has been heard since from this elusive Secretary of State.
One of the tragedies of the present position is that the Secretary of State and the other Northern Ireland Ministers are not truly part of the Ulster community. When they emerge from the Stormont redoubt they are insulated from the ordinary Ulster people and their everyday problems, by the security guards and by their restricted movement.
This is truly damaging to the prospects of progress in Northern Ireland. It does not help the Ministers to understand the basic trouble with the economy and the basic social problems which exist there. They have no real knowledge of how Ulster people live. They have no real knowledge of the cost of living, which, although higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom, continues to spiral upwards.
The Ministers have no knowledge of the jobless, or of the particularly damaging effect on young people who, full of idealism and hope, cannot find employment. Today in Ulster there is stagnation as well as inflation, and unemployment exists at twice the national average.
The present disastrous unemployment figures will be inflated further during the next few months, when those who have already received redundancy notices are thrown out of work. There are some who seem to take pleasure in the ever-increasing number of unemployed and regard it as evidence that the Government's policy is working. That is a hardhearted attitude, which displays a callous indifference to a human tragedy. It is necessary to live close to the unemployed or to live in a house in which someone is unemployed to realise the heart-ache that is caused by being thrown out of work. I do not believe that there is any philosophy that can justify tens of thousands being thrown on the scrap-heap.
If the Government do not help, the Ulster people must be mobilised to face

the challenge of despondency and depression. Surely the Government should do something before the House rises for the recess. They should pledge themselves to do something to meet the disgraceful situation in Ulster where the standard of living is lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Government have not given any lead so far. The £92 million that was mentioned about a month ago should be given as additional funding to industry and public expendiutre cuts should not take place. Despite what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says, more people in Northern Ireland depend upon public expenditure than in any other region in the United Kingdom. Those who advocate cutting public expenditure are advocating kicking people out of their jobs. That is not acceptable to the majority in Northern Ireland.
The evil terrorists still hope to drag the Ulster people into a bloody confrontation. It is because of that terrorism that there is a clear need to involve all reasonable and decent Ulster people, young and old, in the worthwhile struggle to improve the quality of life in the Province. The first assault must be made on bureaucracy, especially on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of the Environment, both of which cost millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to run. However, they ride roughshod over those whom they are meant to serve.
For example, everyone in Northern Ireland has complaints to make about planning matters throughout the Province. The latest manifestation of the bureaucratic attitude of the Department of the Environment is its determination, despite strong local pressure and the judgment of some professional people, to go ahead with the plan to pour comminuted raw sewage into Strangford Lough, an area of outstanding beauty.
There is a desperate need for housing in Northern Ireland. The executive is top-heavy. It costs colossal sums to meet staff salaries. It has failed abysmally to build the necessary homes in Ulster. Officials in local offices do their best, but unless tenancies are available for those in overcrowded or substandard accommodation, many, especially young married couples, will continue to suffer.
Recently the chief executive came to the village where I live to issue another executive pronouncement on repairs. Perhaps it is as well that I was not invited to be present. It may be that my presence was not desired in case I should put to the chief executive the failure of the executive to meet the numerous complaints of tenants about repairs.
There must be a close examination of the executive's hierarchy to ascertain where staffing cuts may be made. Experience indicates that the greater the number off staff the fewer houses are built in the Province. The housing situation in Northern Ireland is disgraceful. There are thousands of families living in conditions that warrant rehousing.
There are streets of houses in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, which have been vested by the Department of the Environment and the Housing Executive and are lying vacant. Most of them were reasonable homes when they were boarded up. They have deteriorated with the passage of time. As I said in an earlier debate, these houses should be used by the Government to rehouse those who are desperately in need of a home.
The House should not adjourn for a long Summer Recess, because of the social and economic problems that exist in Ulster. The problems will worsen in the coming months, quite apart from the increase that we are _bound to see in terrorism before the House meets again. There is an overwhelming argument why Ulster Members should meet regularly as the Northern Ireland Committee at Stormont. If the Government do not intend to alter the dates of the recess, they should make arrangements for the Northern Ireland Committee to meet at Stormont so that the vital problems can be debated by Ulster representatives in Ulster, where the Ulster people may make their views known.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the House adjourns for the Summer Recess I wish to draw the Government's attention to the need to tighten certain planning laws and regulations and to ensure their more speedy application by local authorities. It is, of course, the Welsh Office that has responsibility for these matters in Wales.
My attention is being drawn to this issue by the residents of Moiden Road, in the St. Julians district of Newport. From my analysis of the situation they are aggrieved for very good reason.
Briefly the issue concerns the property, No. 14 Moiden Road, which is owned by a Mr. Roy Richards, a local antique dealer. About two years ago workmen commenced alterations to the property. The residents were immediately suspicious about what was afoot. Their doubts were certainly soundly based. They have taken the trouble to record a blow-by-blow diary of what has taken place. They have supplied me with a copy. My submission is based almost entirely on their written submission.
The issue began in August 1978. The residents approached the owner when the workmen appeared on the premises. They were told that the workmen were merely putting up new ceilings in the property. A few days later they were told by the workmen that the property was being converted into four flats and that they had been instructed to tell no one of that fact.
The residents inquired immediately at the planning department of the local council. They asked whether permission had been given for the development. They were given a very definite "No". Other neighbours wrote or telephoned the council and they were persistent in their approaches. They were told by a Mr. McKinty, of the planning department, that he was dealing with the matter. No action was taken. The conversion work was eventually completed. Curtains were put up and the work came to an end. The residents made many more fruitless phone calls and representations to the council. They wrote to Mr. Straw, the director of technical services. They also contacted their local ward councillors, including councillor Roy Morris, who was chairman of the planning committee at the time.
On 19 October 1978 a meeting was held at the residence of one of the people in the street, which was attended by certain council officials and residents. The same Mr. McKinty from the planning department said that no action could be taken until the property's use had changed. On 20 October the residents informed that gentleman that the flats


were occupied. He promised that the council would take action. The following week the council sent a building inspector along, but he did not enter the premises. However, within seconds Mr. Richards, the owner, arrived accompanied by someone whom the residents believed to be a local solicitor. The residents firmly believed that Mr. Richards had been tipped off about the inspector's visit. Their suspicions were multiplied when Mr. McKinty told them that Mr. Richards, the owner, had friends who were
high up in the council".
The residents then went to the citizens advice bureau. They were advised to write to Mr. John Long, who was then chief executive of the council. They did so. Numerous phone calls were made to the council. Eventually the residents were told that the matter would be discussed by the planning committee on 28 November 1978. Again, no action was taken. Mr. Payne, the council's solicitor, said that Mr. Richards would not admit to ownership of the premises. He also said that he would need to know the names of all the tenants. Meanwhile the police had been called as a result of certain disorderly conduct, including excessive noise.
A further complication arose because the tenants of the four flats had now sublet their flats. In one case, four or five people shared a single room and slept on the floor. By now, the residents were up in arms. Again, they went to the citizens advice bureau. An official of the bureau approached the council. Mr. McKinty of the planning department replied that the enforcement order was ready to be served. By this time, the residents were thoroughly dissatisfied by the way in which Newport council had handled the matter. On 20 November they met Mr. Ferris, of a local Newport firm called Emmanuel Marks and Cocker. He suggested that the matter should be referred to the Ombudsman. Later, two councillors for the ward, councillors Roger Williams and Roy Morris, who were out canvassing, were asked specifically if the matter could be referred to the Ombudsman. The residents were told that the matter would be looked into.
The residents also expressed concern about the alleged connection of Mr. Richards, the owner, with "a high-up" representative on the council. It was implied that the gentleman concerned was councillor Gerald Davies, the chairman of the housing committee. On 1 May 1979, an enforcement order was placed on the house. The following day the landlord came and took it down. On 3 May Mr. McKinty came with the order and saw the landlord. He refused to accept the order. It was then placed at his feet, but Mr. Richards picked it up and ripped it into small pieces. On Friday 4 May a young girl came to occupy the top flat, which had been empty since 30 April. This apparently gave the landlord a legal loophole, because the operative date of the enforcement order was 9 May. The young girl had been in occupation before that date, and her name was not included on the order. The order was therefore ineffective. Mr. McKinty then—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon tell us why Parliament should not rise before this little dispute has been resolved.

Mr. Hughes: There are some unusual aspects to this case. For example, on 9 May 1979 Mr. Richards went to the house of a resident accompanied by a CID officer. Allegedly, they had come about a broken window. A lady was questioned and was scared out of her wits. A complaint was made to the local police headquarters. An inspector came over and took a statement from her. By way of official explanation, the police indicated that the CID man had been off duty at the time of the incident. The man was transferred to the uniform branch, and shortly afterwards left the force.
On 14 May, Mr. Richards went to the property with a Mr. Brian Williams. The residents discovered that he was from the technical services department. It would be reasonable to ask what his connection with the case was, and whether he was acting with the council's authority. I have asked the council to investigate the case fully.
It is aware that I am raising this subject in the House of Commons today. It is 12


months since the enforcement order was served, yet the Welsh Office has done nothing but delay and prevaricate.
Apparently, the owner has indicated that he will appeal against the enforcement order. Whenever the Welsh Office has set a date, the owner has said that that date was inconvenient. Meanwhile, he continues to collect rent from this unauthorised development. I estimate that he has collected about £6,000, and have based that estimate on the assumption that he has collected about £280 a month. Respectable and law-abiding citizens are being treated in a disgraceful way. They have been trying merely to secure the proper enforcement of the planning laws and regulations in order to maintain the standard of their homes and of their area.
In that quest for elementary justice, the residents have appealed to all manner of agencies. For example, they have appealed to three of the local council's departments. They have been to the police on several occasions. They have been to the fire service, to the citizens advice bureau, to a solicitor, to their councillors, and eventually to their Member of Parliament. This issue raises some important questions. Why did it take nine months to serve the enforcement order? Was it—as the residents allege—because the landlord had connections in high places? There has been an obvious infringement of planning regulations. However, we all know how decisive councillors can be if, for example, a pensioner wishes to make a small unauthorised extension to his home.
The rateable value of the property is also involved. Four separate dwellings are involved and therefore the rateable value is higher than for a single dwelling. However, no extra revenue has accrued to the council, although the landlord is collecting an unauthorised rent. Why did not the environmental health department take action when four to five people were found to be living in a room? This is a case of multiple occupancy. We often hear about Pakistanis being prosecuted for the same thing. Is not that an indication that some people are still more equal than others?
What about the fire regulations? From a safety angle they leave much to be desired. What is being done? A request was made for the issue to be referred to the Ombudsman. I thought that councillors were obliged to act upon such a

request. What about Mr. Richards, the owner? It is not a question merely of restoring the house to its original condition. The owner appears to be guilty of a down-graded type of Rachmanism. He should be brought to book.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who made an admirable speech on Chile, I wish to bring to the attention of the House a grave breach of human rights and the rule of law which led to the serious injury of a British subject abroad without redress. I seek assurances from the Government about what action they propose to take. In view of the long delay, the matter cannot wait until after the recess. I want to know what action the Government propose to take to secure the proper protection of our citizens abroad from conduct such as that which I shall describe and to ensure that compensation is paid where appropriate.
The case is that of Mr. Humphry Berkeley. It has created a great deal of concern among many right hon. and hon. Members of this House and Members of another place, including two former Prime Ministers and three former Foreign Secretaries, who have made representations on his behalf. The case began in February 1979 when Mr. Berkeley was in Transkei. He was kidnapped by six members of the security police, put in the boot of a security police car with his wrists tied with a piece of wire and driven for two and a half hours across the border from Transkei to the Republic of South Africa. When he was on South African soil an attempt was made, fortunately unsuccessfully, to kill him. Eventually he was admitted to hospital with severe multiple bruising, internal bleeding and shock.
The South African Government have been given the names of five of the six security police officers who were identified not merely by Mr. Berkeley but by a senior Transkei civil servant. Despite an extradition treaty between South Africa and Transkei, no action has been taken to bring the people concerned to justice. The South African Attorney-General has refused to do so.
The matter does not rest there. Mr. Berkeley has had the advice of the chairman of the Bar Council of South Africa


as to the strength of the case for the prosecution. He is satisfied that there is a strong case. He is prepared to bring a private prosecution if the Attorney-General for South Africa is not prepared to bring proceedings publicly. However, he has encountered the most appalling obstacles even in getting to South Africa to give a statement to the police.
Eventually, after a long delay and great pressure, he was allowed earlier this year to go there for a week. When he arrived, the police did not want to know. They refused to see him. He was unable to make a statement to them. Only after he had returned to Britain did the police say that they were willing to receive a statement. Not unnaturally, the Attorney-General for South Africa decided that nothing new had emerged that enabled him to change his mind.
The fact remains that Mr. Berkeley suffered grievously without any redress. It happened apparently without the South African Government being willing to give any compensation and, it may well be, to listen to any arguments put forward on behalf of the British Government as to why a British citizen should be treated in such a way, why proper steps should be taken to deal with those responsible, or why compensation should not be provided.
It is to the credit of Mr. Berkeley that, despite all that, he has continued to bring the matter to the attention of hon. Members on both sides of the House and others. The only reply that he has received from the South African ambassador in London is
I have taken note with regret the fact that you feel it necessary once again to publicise this matter.
I have written to the Lord Privy Seal to tell him that I intend to raise the matter in today's debate. It is utterly disgraceful that a British citizen should be subjected to such conduct and be unable to get any redress, and that the people concerned should be allowed to go free. So far as we know, the Government have taken no action to ensure that such a British subject is properly treated.
I ask the Leader of the House to say that stringent measures will be taken to ensure that the South African authorities do what is right, either by prosecuting or by enabling Mr. Berkeley to go to

South Africa to bring a private prosecution against those responsible.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I shall be brief. I begin by asking a simple and factual question of the Leader of the House. Depending on his answer, some of my hon. Friends will decide whether to divide on the motion. On what date will the October unemployment figures be published? I understand that Government statistics are published on regular days and that unemployment figures always come out on a Tuesday. Invariably they are published on the day on which employment questions are asked in the House.
When I visited the Library on Thursday assistants could not tell me when the October unemployment figures will be published. In the last two or three months the figures have been published in the third Tuesday of the month. That means that the October unemployment figures will be published on Tuesday 21 October. If that is so I want the House to return on Monday 20 October.
It would be in the interests of all hon. Members if the House were not in recess for the publication of three consecutive unemployment figures.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. Gentleman wish the House to return in September so that we can hear the September unemployment figures?

Mr. Rooker: Yes. That would avoid repeated calls to the Government to return. Each time the figures come out there will be round robins, telegrams, statements and letters. Perhaps the Leader of the House will be able to put up with all that twice. He will be able to say "No. Sorry. There are party conferences."
It may be that the figures will be published on Tuesday 28 October, the day after we return. In that case, all that I have said has no validity. It is not that I mistrust the Government. When I went to check the matter in the Library I found that I was following a well-trodden path. Some years ago, the present Secretary of State for the Environment was unhappy when the recess dates were announced, because he thought that the then Labour Government intended to rig some trade figures. He thought that there


was a correlation between the date when the House was due to return after the Summer Recess and the publication of some important statistics.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to the Birmetals dispute. The matter was also raised by the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who was unkind in attempting to lay the whole of the blame on "hotheads" in the trade unions. The hon. Gentleman did not mention anyone by name, but two weeks ago four of my colleagues, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West an marched with and spoke to those involved in this tragic dispute. Trade union officials and leaders from the work place were not criticised by any of the 300 workers who were present.
The letter sent to hon. Members by the works convener, Mr. Maldon, who is a Transport and General Workers Union member, and the deputy convener, Mr. Glasford, who is a member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, explained the position exactly as it was set out by my right hon. and learned Friend. There was no criticism of those men and it was a little churlish of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge to blame all the problems on the trade unions.
The central point that I want to reinforce is that it appears that the company has discovered, perhaps not intentionally, a loophole in our employment laws. I should have thought that even the present Government would not be happy to have that provision left on the statute book.
The workers who have been sacked are not on the unemployment register. They are not receiving unemployment benefit, because they are not eligible for it. They have not received redundancy payments, because they are alleged not to be redundant. They are receiving no benefits. They are not receiving supplementary benefit. They do not appear in the figures.
We are in a sorry state of affairs if, following a dispute over pay—it is not true to say that the workers did not receive a pay offer; they received a nil offer—a company can lay off the work force and subsequently dismiss all the workers and close the factory, thereby getting round the redundancy payments

laws and depriving workers of national insurance benefits to which they are entitled.
Some bucket shop operators will deliberately exploit that loophole and will make it part of their company policy. When they want to close a plant or consolidate the business by moving machinery from one factory to another in the group, they will manufacture a dispute—which is not difficult, given our present industrial problems—over sales, job demarcation or pay and use the loophole to deprive workers of their legal rights.
In the light of the sweet words used by the present Secretary of State for Employment in Committee on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill, the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill and the Employment Protection Bill, I cannot believe that the Government would condone companies deliberately using a loophole to deprive workers of their legitimate rights.
We cannot allow this matter to fester throughout the recess and to go through industrial tribunals, as it would in the normal course of events. It is wholly unsatisfactory that the workers should have been thrown on the scrap-heap in that way. Some had worked in the factory for 40 years. They were not involved in the dispute. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West said, women of 59 and men close to retirement were ordered to do unloading and delivery work in the warehouses where the dispute was taking place. They were not fitted for that work.
I should put on the record a point made by the trade unions. For the past two years, the company has been operating without a health and safety officer. There was no one employed by the company to whom the workers who thought that the work was unsafe for them could complain. We are not talking about a bucket shop company. It is part of a large group.
There was an Adjournment debate on the matter on 9 July. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) who initiated that debate. The factory that was affected by the closure is in his constituency, but many of us have discovered that the work force seems to be spread all over the West Midlands, the Birmingham area and the


Black Country. However, even if hon. Members did not have constituents working in the plant, anyone interested in good industrial relations should be concerned about the existence of the loophole and should want it closed as soon as possible. That is why we have raised the matter and why some of the workers from the plant have visited the House during the day.
The last point that I wish to raise touches on a matter brought up by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who spoke of the red, white and blue pound. I am concerned about the Government's procurement policy. The Leader of the House has heard at least 95 per cent. of the debate and he knows that much of it has been devoted to unemployment. It is forecast that 1980 will be the first year in our history in which we shall be a net importer of manufactured goods. We shall not know whether that forecast is accurate until the first quarter of next year, but we know that last year we became net importers of machine tools. About 900 workers from Alfred Herbert, in Coventry, will be marching to a lobby of the House on Wednesday to highlight again the fact that they are on 90 days' notice and will be sacked in September.
I have a question for the Government. What have they done since, say, the initiative taken not by a member of the Government or by an hon. Member, but by Sir Michael Edwardes, who wrote to The Times on 1 January to try to get the "Buy British" campaign under way? All hon. Members received copies of Sir Michael's letter. He said that even hon. Members were not averse to importing unemployment because they buy foreign cars while unemployment soars. One can walk round our car park any day of the week, as I did today, and count enormous numbers of foreign-manufactured cars. Some hon. Members, as the leader of the Liberal Party showed last week, buy products thinking that they are made in Britain, only to discover later that they are not.
What have the Government done to raise awareness following the lead given by Sir Michael Edwardes? For example, are the Government still allowing local authorities and other parts of the public

sector to give cheap loans to employees for the purpose of purchasing foreign-built cars? In Birmingham, between one-quarter and one-third of the lists that are published every so often turn out to relate to foreign-built cars.
Are the Government still subsidising companies under their regional policy to purchase foreign equipment for their factories regardless of the source of that equipment? It is well known that under the last Labour Government, if British Leyland wanted to buy foreign for purposes of its capital programme it had to inform the Department of Industry—not just the NEB—and if it went ahead and bought the foreign goods the information went across Minister's desks and the company was asked to explain why. That was done only following pressure from Labour Members of Parliament and in this specific case from the Machine Tool Trades Association, which was concerned about the massive re-equipment programme following the original Ryder report and wanted to make sure that the maximum amount of goods was purchased by BL from British companies.
I know that I have criticised BL, but I should like to know whether that policy still operates. If BL has to go abroad, does it still have to explain why? The reason is obvious, and I should have thought that the Government would be doing that in any event. However, I was prompted to raise this matter by Sir Michael Edwardes' latest letter, which appeared in The Times on Wednesday 2 July. In it he gave some of the history of his campaign and said:
It was not a wild appeal to people to buy British regardless of value, but rather to give the British product a fair chance … To buy British wherever it is sensible to do so is something of which no one should feel ashamed particularly if it were part of a nationally agreed strategy aimed at restoring our industrial base.
In that context, I was struck by the words of the hon. Member for Woking But he implored the Government to use their own procurement agencies and procurement policy to operate what he called a "red, white and blue pound" policy so that we could see where we were spending the taxpayers' money.
I come now to what I regard as the minimum action necessary on the part of the Government before we adjourn for


the Summer Recess. It will not cost anything if the Government start to save the situation by endeavouring to ensure that publicly funded companies, corporations and authorities include at least one British supplier in every quotation. For the avoidance of any doubt, let me spell it out by saying that include Rolls-Royce on that list. I make no accusations. I say that just for the avoidance of doubt so that people do not misconstrue afterwards what I have said.
It will not cost the Government anything to say to British companies, wherever their factories may be or wherever their agencies operate, that they should make sure, as publicly funded bodies, that they give British manufacturers the chance to quote.
If it is shown that British manufacturers do not, will not, or cannot, quote, at least we know where to start looking for the failure of British manufacturing industry. The Government could draw up a list and possibly publish it showing which sections of industry did not feel able to quote for specific items or for a few million components. We would know where to start looking and, what is more, those companies would have fewer excuses that they feel able to offer now.
I make no plea for buying British at any cost. No Opposition Member has ever advocated that. It is not a plea for imposing import controls. None of my hon. Friends has ever advocated general, permanent import controls. It is a total travesty of the argument advanced by the Opposition if anyone alleges that that is our policy. We have urged specific, short-term selective controls. Those are the terms, and we do not hide behind them or use them as an excuse for saying that we really mean general, long-term import controls. If we did, in some of our factories they would never get another product out of the door. If it were known that they were permanently protected, there would be massive problems within management, within the industrial relations structure, and in terms of capital expenditure and product planning. It would be a gift for lazy, uninnovative management as well as for those who wished to create frustration for all sorts of motives. I am not hiding behind that, and it is a

travesty of the truth for anyone to allege that that is the Opposition's policy.
But it will not cost the Government anything to meet what I ask them to do. It will defend jobs, and my right hon. and hon. Frends and I will use the last breath in our bodies to defend the jobs of our constituents. That is what the House of Commons is for. But the Government can help us, because we all know of incident after incident of public sector companies going abroad to buy products which they can obtain in this country. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) referred to an example the other day when he told hon. Members about the Russian matches being sold on Sealink ferries. Why is that the case? Was there no British manufacturer able to quote for them? If not, why not? Let us know about this. It will not cost the Government a penny to issue an edict to make sure that British firms get a chance where publicly funded corporations and bodies are involved in spending money.

Mr. Thomas Cox: The issue on which I wish to detain the House for a few minutes is that of Cyprus, and it is a subject rarely discussed in this House. Six years ago Cyprus was invaded, and even today it is still partly occupied by the Turkish army.
This is not a party issue. One has only to look at early-day motion 798, signed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, to realise that. Those right hon. and hon. Members deeply regret the lack of action by the then Government when Turkish troops invaded Cyprus, and many find it utterly deplorable that, six years later, those troops are still there. We must ask the Leader of the House how this Government—and, for that matter, the last one—can allow a Commonwealth country to be partly occupied by a foreign army and do nothing about it.
In recent months, we have heard a great deal about Afghanistan and about Zimbabwe, and I am sure that the whole House sympathises with both countries and the tragedies which have befallen them. Regrettably, however, we hardly ever hear of the tragedy which has lasted for six years in Cyprus. Many hon. Members believe that a deep injustice has


been done to the Cypriot people, be they Turkish or Greek Cypriots, and I intend to touch on some of the questions which have gone unanswered for the last six years.
What are the Government doing about the vast numbers of people missing from their homes? There is an enormous amount of documentation, including names and addresses, yet the Turkish authorities refuse to do anything to help trace these people.
What is the Government's attitude to the Turkish settlers? It is difficult to get the exact figures, but it is fair to assume that many thousands have come from mainland Turkey and are now settled in Cyprus. Many of us believe that it was deliberate provocation by the Turkish Government to allow these people to establish themselves in Cyprus, occupying the homes and land formerly owned and farmed by Greek Cypriots.
Over the last six years, promise after promise has been made that action would be taken. There was the promise that intercommunal talks were about to get under way. Whenever discussions have started, it has been only a matter of a few days before the talks have broken down. I accept that they are, possibly, not easy to get under way, but I do not think that anyone who has followed events in Cyprus in recent years can be in any doubt that it is the attitude of Mr. Denktash that has presented the problems, and that he is the principal cause of the failures of intercommunal talks even to take place. Those who doubt what I say need only study the reports of the General Assembly of the United Nations which clearly show who has been obstructing the development of talks.
The Prime Minister has indicated in reply to a question which I put that she intends to visit Greece in the near future. I would like the Leader of the House to convey to the right hon. Lady the urgency of ensuring, in talks with Greek Government officials during her visit, that discussions take place on the future of Cyprus. One sees the possibility, if the Turkish army—it is understood to number about 40,000 troops—does not leave Cyprus, of a Northern Ireland situation developing. Many people in Cyprus view the future of their country with despair. They regard themselves as

little more than a pawn in an enormous military game, the principal reason for the delay in putting pressure on the Turkish Government being related to the significance of Cyprus as an island and a military base.
The matter is urgent. It has dragged on for six years. Nothing has happened during that time except the creation of enormous problems for the people of Cyprus. It is no good anyone saying that they are thinking about the matter and trying to get talks going between the Greek and Turkish Governments. Time is running out. Unless some action is taken, one can see a situation in which Greek Cypriots will not be content any longer to be told to wait and everything will resolve itself. They are fast losing patience, certainly with the Greek Government. They are losing hope that the Turkish authorities intend to start to face up realistically to their responsibilities. If the British Government, one of the guarantor Power of the island of Cyprus, do not start to take constructive action, the fears of many Greek Cypriots will be strengthened.
There are hon. Members, irrespective of party, who intend on every possible occasion to bring forward the issue of Cyprus. We do not intend to allow the issue to fall by the wayside because no one is prepared to stand up and fight for the people of Cyprus, whether Greek or Turkish Cypriots. We are convinced that until the Turkish army and the settlers leave, there can be no lasting peace for the island. It is our duty on every possible occasion to present the issue of Cyprus to the House in the hope that, in the not-too-distant future, dignity and honour will once again return to the island.

Mr. Michael Foot: I should like to comment on several of the speeches made by my hon. Friends, but I also have some urgent matters of my own that I wish to raise. I shall curb as much as possible my comments on speeches already made from the Opposition Benches, although I must say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), who has spoken previously with equal passion on the same subject, that I agree that deep injustice has been done to the people of Cyprus. This situation


should not merely be left to fester. An initiative will have to be taken to try to ensure that discussions take place. The objections to progress come from the quarters that my hon. Friend has described. A special responsibility rests upon the British Government. We were the guarantors of Cypriot independence. We have a closer association with Cyprus than with any other leading country. I agree with my hon. Friend that we have a responsibility to try to ensure a better settlement. A settlement is not to be secured merely by leaving the situation as it is.
I should also like to refer to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and the case of Mr. Humphry Berkeley. I believe that the Government should be seeking to assist in that direction. I do not know whether the Government can reply tonight, but I hope that they will use their influence to assist him in seeing whether he can secure justice in the matter that he has brought before the House and that has been brought before it on previous occasions.
I should like to refer to the difficulty in which the House is placed as a result of the way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment has sought to get his business through the House of Commons. It is more than a difficulty. It is a shocking situation. We believe that a statement is required from the Secretary of State tomorrow. I shall refer to the particular matter, but I have made these remarks so that the Leader of the House should not think that it is sufficient for him to say that he will raise the matter with the Secretary of State. We are asking for a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment tomorrow concerning the Local Government Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill. Sometimes, hearing the Bill taken through the House by the right hon. Gentleman, we think that no one has carried a Bill through the House in more disgraceful circumstances. However, when we hear what the right hon. Gentleman is doing over the Housing Bill, we know that this is also a strong competitor for the claim. The Leader of the House must suffer guilt by association with his right hon. Friend. On both matters, he must take action to assist the Opposition and the House.
Part VI of the Local Government, Planning and Land No. 2) Bill will

enable the Secretary of State to penalise certain overspending authorities. It allows the right hon. Gentleman to construct the criteria by which overspending is defined. He has already announced that if and when the Bill becomes law he will penalise overspenders by reducing the amount of rate support grant supplement that they receive in November. The right hon. Gentleman has said, both in the House and in a circular to local authorities, that he anticipates that he will penalise up to 20 overspend authorities. Three months ago, he gave a general definition of local authority overspending as that by authorities whose notional rate—a wholly artificial figure, that is—exceeded 119p.
On the latest information, almost half the 450 rating authorities exceeded that figure and are therefore liable to punishment. How the Secretary of State chooses 20 from the 225 is entirely a matter for him. Different rules produce different authorities. For instance, the 20 authorities with the highest rates are not the same as the 20 authorities with the highest rate increase. Thus, about 200 authorities are theoretically liable to be punished in November without having the slightest idea of the rules that they can obey or disregard and so avoid or incur punishment. That is a scandalous state of affairs. For the House of Commons to be sent away in that situation, with local authorities placed in that position, is not tolerable. We therefore believe that the Leader of the House should ensure, in order to sustain the decency of the House, that the Secretary of State should come to the House tomorrow to make a statement on this subject.
Another matter of importance is the Housing Bill, which is down for debate tomorrow with a huge number of amendments and groups of amendments. In effect, the Government have introduced a whole new Bill and will seek to take it through the House of Commons tomorrow. We must also take into account the amendments from the other place.
We should have full and proper time to consider all these matters. If the Government seek to press on with that Bill tomorrow it will be an utter disgrace. I hope that they will contemplate no such thing; I hope that they will look at the matter afresh in the light of what I am saying and will agree that the


House should have proper time to discuss both the other Lords amendments and the groups of amendments which they have tabled.
So I am asking for a special statement by the Secretary of State for the Environment tomorrow on the Local Government Bill provisions of which I have referred and an undertaking by the Government that they will not seek to push through the whole of the Housing Bill in the time they seem to have in mind They can leave the rest of that Bill until we return after the recess. If they want the House to return a little earlier so as to have more time for that purpose, we shall be happy to accommodate them.
Before we go into recess, the Government should make a further statement on Chile, as requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). We asked the Government last Thursday, through the Lord Privy Seal, some questions about Chile, but we received only derisory answers. The Lord Privy Seal normally treats the House with courtesy, but on this occasion he treated it with contempt. He treated the subject as one of no significance, and hardly gave a straight reply to the serious questions asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore).
I hope that the Leader of the House will understand that we regard the question of Chile and the Government's conduct towards Chile as a matter of major importance for this country's regulation. The Foreign Secretary is at this moment travelling in South America. It is utterly disgraceful that when such a visit was contemplated the Government should have proceeded not merely to restore diplomatic relations but to restart the sale of arms to Chile. We regard that as an offence against the rights and reputation of this country.
The Government have a shoddy and shameful record over Chile altogether. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, they have. They should be ashamed of their statements about Miss Cassidy and what she has said. I heard her on the radio the other day. Anyone who has heard her evidence can see how disreputable were the Government's comments. Because the Government made such comments,

all the more should they have been eager to ensure that they did not assist the Chilean regime. But they went out of their way to assist it.
However, the Chilean Government have treated our Government with contempt. At the time of the Munich debates, someone said that this country had eaten dirt in vain. Apparently we have done the same in the case of Chile, because the Chilean Government have taken no notice of the orders which will be made in the light of the statement by the British Government.
Therefore, when the Government decided to embark on that policy they should at least have put the matter openly before the House and given us the opportunity for a debate. I repeat that we regard the Government's treatment of this question as unworthy of this country and bound to injure our reputation in Latin America and throughout the world if they do not reconsider. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will treat the matter a little more seriously than the Lord Privy Seal did.
I turn now to another important civil liberty question which affects this country. The Leader of the House will no doubt have read the leading article in The Times the other day under the headline "A Charter for Wrongdoing". That was the term used to describe the verdict of the judges in the Granada case. I read with interest the description which The Times—I repeat, The Times, not the Morning Star—applied to the judges. One of the reasons why it thought that the judges had reached a wrong decision was:
They chose to do so"—
that is, the judges chose to give their verdict—
in a manner which demonstrated, regrettably not for the first time in recent years, that they have little understanding of the way society operates in reality. Their personal detachment from society—except for the society of the law—has led to their divorce from the realities of the democratic system." t
If I were to have used such language, I should have been severely rebuked, no doubt, by the Prime Minister or some other member of the Government for having improperly criticised the judiciary. But these are the words of The Times and I must say that I agree with them. On a matter of this kind,


on which the judgment would require Granada to reveal its sources, contrary to the honourable course in such circumstances, the judges should at least have published the evidence on which they were asking those concerned to make up their minds.
A contempt of court will be committed if Granada does not reveal its sources. However, no explanation has been given for their judgment by the judges who are in favour of Granada doing so. We were also told that Lord Salmon, who is not a judge to be dismissed, is reserving his judgment until later in the year. By dealing with such a case on that basis the judges have certainly confirmed what The Times said. This underlines afresh the seriousness of this case and shows how serious may be the assault upon the freedom of the press if nothing is done about it.
Therefore, I hope that the Leader of the House will give an absolute undertaking that one of the Government's earliest measures after the recess will be to change the law to meet these circumstances and to ensure that we ward off the perils to our freedom. It is not only the freedom of the press—

Mr. Emery: But they stole documents.

Mr. Foot: First of all, it is not only a question of stealing documents. The question is whether people who are giving evidence in any sort of confidence are to have the source of their evidence revealed. If journalists are required to do so by the law of the land, the business of this place will be brought to a standstill. We could not operate the House of Commons on a lobby system as most of us understand it if that were to be the practice.
I repeat that the question is not just whether documents were stolen. It is nothing of the sort, and apparently what the judges have said has recognised that it is nothing of the sort—although we do not yet know the grounds on which the judges are demanding that Granada should act in this way.
In my belief, it is impossible to imagine that Granada will come forward and accept the verdict of the court in this situation. Therefore, the judges have brought the reputation of the court in

these matters into serious dispute. The responsibility for that rests with the judges. It does not rest with this House or with people here who state the view that I put forward.
If the judges are correct in their interpretation of the law—although there is, apparently, no law for them to interpret—it is extremely serious and the Government should give a clear undertaking not simply that they will look into the question but that they will come forward immediately on the return of the House and seek to change the law. They must do that in order to deal with a serious matter which affects not only the way in which newspapers are conducted but the way in which the House of Commons is conducted and the freedom of our society. I trust that the Government will approach the matter in that spirit, though they have shown little sign of doing that so far.
I wish to put two other major questions to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House. One concerns the written answer given today about the abandonment of the Clegg Commission. The Government have chosen to deal with the matter in a written answer. It is deplorable that the Prime Minister did not come to the House and make a statement on this matter. Either it is an important matter or it is a trivial question.
Some hon. Members who back the Government claim falsely, though no doubt sincerely, that the Clegg Commission has had a considerable effect upon the rate of inflation. I do not believe that. The Clegg Commission secured a system of comparability. If Government Back-Benchers, and the Government themselves, believe that the operation of the Clegg Commission has been so significant for the rate of inflation and for our entire economic policy, it was all the more necessary that the Government should come to the House and make an open, clear announcement of their decision to abandon it. The Government should have made themselves available to cross-examination by the House.
If the House of Commons had done its job properly, and if the Government had treated the House properly, there would have been an opportunity for a debate on the matter. Of course, the abandonment of the Clegg Commission is just another attack by the Government on the public


service. Nobody claims that it is easy to decide what is to happen in certain sections of the public service, particularly in relation to the lower-paid.
In the main, though not entirely, Clegg dealt with the lower-paid. Now, apparently; the Government intend that comparability studies for the better-off are to continue but that comparability studies for people covered by the Clegg Commission—a whole range of workers who were brought within the Commission's scope—are to be abandoned. That is a serious step for the Government to take. The Government are saying "All right, we are not going to seek to establish any sense of fairness in the relationship between pay in the public service and private industry. We are going to abandon all the efforts to secure a proper, comparable system and we are going to tear up any arrangements, imperfect though they may be, for securing it." The circumstances in which the Government are abandoning the Clegg Commission is an absolute indication of the re-establishment of the law of the jungle in dealing with these matters. The whole issue should have been debated by the House.
What will happen when the country faces those problems that we are bound to encounter if we are to have fairness for all the groups covered by the Clegg Commission? Those groups will be told that they may not have an inquiry to examine their rights and claims. They will be told that they will have to fight it out with such strength as they possess.
The Government apparently think that it is right to maintain comparability studies for doctors, dentists, the Armed Services and the police but not for those who are covered by the Clegg Commission. That is a piece of gross unfairness. It could be described as a piece of gross class prejudice.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Yes it is. The Government are saying that they do not care about the poorly paid. They are saying that they do not care about people who are employed by local authorities. They are saying that those people must fight for their rights if they have the strength. The Government are not worried about those people.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who do not accept that that is the case should think more carefully before they support the action—if they do support it—of the Government. The Government have spent anxious hours and days deciding whether to abandon the Clegg Commission. I say that their decision is further evidence that they do not give a damn about treating these matters fairly. They are solely concerned to push through policies that they believe will benefit those people whom they most favour. They have decided on comparability studies for some groups, but other groups are to be abandoned altogether.
I turn to a major question which has figured in all our debates and which will figure in the debates that we shall have in the weeks and months ahead. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) that it would be a good thing if the Leader of the House would tell us when he replies—I am sure that he will have had time to become informed on the matter since my hon. Friend spoke—exactly when the unemployment figures will next be published. The right hon. Gentleman should give the dates so that we know when we will be able to examine the figures.
The unemployment situation has deteriorated swiftly since our last few debates on the topic. In my constituency, which is an example, until a few weeks ago the unemployment figure was just over 14 per cent. In the past month it has shot up to just under 17 per cent. We have a travel-to-work area in which the rate of unemployment is double that of the rest of Wales and is now more than double the rate for the rest of the United Kingdom. That, incidentally, is one of the areas in Wales to which the Prime Minister said the unemployed should move to find jobs. The right hon. Lady suggested that the unemployed should come to an area such as ours which has unemployment on the scale that I have described.
The right hon. Gentleman, and the Government, were asked in the censure debate whether they would come to the House before we went away for the recess and make a statement on the measures they intended to take to re-establish the money paid to the Manpower Services Commission. They were asked about


making good the £ 170 million they sought to take away from the MSC when their first Budget was introduced. Since then the MSC itself has indicated afresh that it would not be able to do its job properly with the funds available to it. The MSC has made the position clearer. The right hon. Gentleman, and the Government, should make a statement to the House, during the three or four days that remain to them, on employment and how they will deal with the claims and the problems of the MSC.
In my constituency, where the unemployment rate is 17 per cent., the Government propose to remove one of the skillcentres which we ourselves have built up over the past two or three years. That skillcentre is to be moved further down the valleys after a year or two and we shall be left fighting to attract new industries when one of our main means of attracting those industries has been taken from us.
That is being done by the same Government who claim to wish to assist in the processes of retraining and of trying to ensure that we can overcome the problem of youth unemployment in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) mentioned the appalling number of apprenticeships being taken up. He quoted appalling figures about the decline in the number of people being trained or who are able to obtain training.
In our current circumstances that is an utter disgrace. It is the most shortsighted policy imaginable. The Government should be preparing to put before the House before the recess a statement to cover the whole area of the Manpower Services Commission, measures that would indicate that they were at least trying to deal with some of these training problems, and that they were prepared to give full support for proper training schemes all over the country. Training is one of the most essential measures that the Government can provide to deal with the immediate situation. A statement along those lines would be much more important than any of the other statements that the Government may be contemplating making before the recess.
I ask again that the Secretary of State for Employment, who has been indicating that he wants to bring further measures

forward on this aspect, should make a statement before the House departs for the recess. He can make it on Wednesday or Thursday. I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that that happens. Of course, he could not solve the unemployment problem by such a measure, but at least if the Government did that they would be making some amends for the policies which they have pursued and which have been outlined by hon. Members on both sides of the House during this debate.
I know that there was some criticism of the fact that the debate on the paper industry took place on this motion rather than later on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. Anyone who heard my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) will appreciate what is happening to this great British industry. If events proceed in this manner, by the time the House reassembles in late October great industries in this country will be facing extinction or drastic alteration, with appalling consequences for the employment of our people. That applies to the paper industry, as my hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman described. It applies to the steel industry as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and others have indicated.
I believe that the House will have to reassemble sooner than we have been led to expect. The amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) would in those circumstances be most suitable, and I am sorry that it was not selected. I believe that we should accept the motion tonight and depart on Friday. We should do so, however, bearing in mind that the country's unemployment crisis is the greatest economic crisis since 1945 and that there are in power a Government who, with almost every step they take, deepen the crisis, make it fiercer and longer lasting and knock away the props and assistance which we in the Labour Government sought to provide to protect our industry while the storm blew. The Government have wiped away almost all those protections. By the time we come back in October many of those industries may be bleeding to death.
The hon. Member for Basildon knows that I am not exaggerating. As well as


the paper industry, however, a whole host of other industries cannot sustain themselves in the face of a combined policy of high interest rates, a high exchange rate, and furious attacks on public expenditure and demand. Many economists now say what we have been saying for many months—that part of the crisis arises from a lack of demand. This is the old crisis described by Keynes. Apparently, however, the Government do not understand the elements of that situation.
Those accumulated reasons, plus the world crisis that the Government failed to mention before 3 May last year—the deepening world recession—will necessitate the return of Parliament earlier than the Government have calculated. The Government have miscalculated everything in dealing with this subject. They are no doubt miscalculating, too, the time when the House will have to return. I would not, therefore, be surprised if we had to come back in September or early October to deal with the supreme crisis which is blowing across the Western world but which has been made infinitely worse by the Government's policies.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (MR. Norman St. John-Stevas): More than 25 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate and I shall endeavour to reply in encapsulated form to their points. Of course, they will have to look to the Ministers concerned for full replies on the questions that they have asked. In each case I shall pass on to the relevant Minister what has been said.
I shall deal at the outset with some of the general points raised by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who was severe in his strictures on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, first, over the Local Government, Planning and Land (No. 2) Bill and, secondly, over the Housing Bill.
The local government Bill proceeded through the House without a guillotine. It was possible at various stages to deal with it by agreement. It is not therefore open to the right hon. Gentleman at this late stage to raise points about local authorities. I shall certainly discuss with my right hon. Friend the right hon.

Gentleman's request for a statement, but there has been ample opportunity in this House and there will be ample opportunity in the other place—of course, the Bill will come back here again if there are amendments to it—for discussion.
There are many Lords amendments to the Housing Bill. However, as I stated the other day, only a handful of them can be considered to be major and controversial. Many of them are drafting amendments and many were not opposed by the official Opposition in the other place. So far, both Houses have spent no fewer than 225½ hours discussing the Bill. I think there has been adequate discussion.
I turn next to the point of major importance concerning the Government of Chile. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman considered my reply during questions on the Business Statement last week to be inadequate. I should point out that business questions do not provide a suitable forum on which to make major statements of foreign policy.

Mr. Foot: I was criticising not the right hon. Gentleman's statement but the attempted or derisory reply given by the Minister in the foreign affairs debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Loyalty compels me not to be mollified by that response and to say that I believe that my right hon. Friend and other Ministers at the Foreign Office have consistently made adequate defences of the policy.
After careful consideration, we have concluded that the total embargo on the sale of defence equipment to Chile should be lifted. Applications for export licences will be dealt with in the normal way. That means—and this is very important—that arms that could be used for internal repression will not be sold. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are deeply concerned about the human rights situation in Chile. We shall continue to use every suitable opportunity in international gatherings and elsewhere, in concert with our European partners and bilaterally, to ensure that the Chilean Government are aware of our views about the abuse of human rights. The situation has improved since the embargo was imposed.
We do not operate an arms embargo on other countries, where the situation


may be no better than it is in Chile. The appointment of ambassadors in no way constitutes support for or approval by Her Majesty's Government of a regime or its policies.

Mr. Winnick: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I must move on, as I have 25 hon. Members to reply to.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the Granada case. I repeat that it is important that the law, whether we approve or disapprove of it, should be obeyed. When the law has been declared by the highest court in the land there is a duty to obey it. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a similar question recently, it may be that the law in this regard should be reviewed. Having demanded an immediate statement of intent, the right hon. Gentleman went on to answer his own point by saying that we do not yet know the grounds of the judgment. If we do not know the grounds of the judgment, how can he possibly ask the Government to commit themselves to amending legislation? My right hon. Friend made an adequate response. She said that it might be necessary to review the law. When we know the grounds of the judgment, if the Government wish to produce propositions, that will be the time to bring them forward.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised the matter of the Clegg Commission. He greatly exaggerated its utility and the good will in which it is held. I imagine that most people will heave a great sigh of relief to know that it is not to continue. I am reminded of the appalling error of 4 per cent. or £130 million that arose in the teachers' pay claim. That sum was awarded by the Clegg Commission on a false premise. If that money was available, it could have been used to finance the training schemes and aid to the young unemployed that the right hon. Gentleman was calling for. It is ridiculous to say that because the Clegg Commission is to be abolished we are returning to the law of the jungle in the public pay sector. That is a gross exaggeration. The Government are merely once again asserting their responsibility in the sphere where they employ people for forming judgments about what the public sector

can afford. That is a return not to the law of the jungle but to responsibility.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned the telephone scheme for handicapped and housebound people in Northern Ireland, which is administered on uniform criteria throughout Northern Ireland. The Department of Health is keeping under review the amount of help with telephones given by the boards so that no one is treated unfairly. The right hon. Gentleman referred to disparities between the southern and northern areas. Those matters have already been brought to the attention of the southern board, which takes the view that due weight is not being given to social and cultural considerations and the level of provision of related services, for example, warden schemes, the home help service and alarm systems.
In addition, the comparatively low level of provision in the Craigavon and Banbridge district is due to a low level of demand. The Department of Health monitors the provision of assistance with telephones using statistical returns submitted annually by the boards. It will be giving special attention to those of the southern board to ensure that no one is being treated unfairly. The intention to review the situation will be reinforced by the contribution made by the right hon. Member for Down, South, which I shall personally draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) made an interesting contribution addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer concerning the case for the abolition of stamp duty for first-time house buyers, the case for abolition of corporation tax, the less popular case for the restoration of schedule A, and support for British manufacturers in defence procurement programmes. I listened with great interest to those points and I shall certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friends who have responsibilities for these matters. I fully endorse my hon. Friend's views on the need for economic recovery as a precondition for much of what we would like to do.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) raised the question of the powers of health and safety inspectors. The hon.


Gentleman has already tabled a number of questions on this matter. The majority of inspectors appointed by the Health and Safety Executive are given warrants authorising them to exercise all the powers conferred on inspectors by relevant statutory provisions. But the hon. Gentleman was asking for a system whereby each inspector's warrant specified only the powers relevant to his specialism. Such a system has something to be said for it in theory, but administratively it would be highly impracticable. I am assured, however, that administrative arrangements are made by the Health and Safety Executive to ensure that a member of one inspectorate does not do the work of another inspectorate and that inquiries and other matters are notified to the relevant inspector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) raised the important matter of the Viscount aircraft which crashed in his constituency on its way to Exeter airport. He mentioned that it had come down near Ottery St. Mary and that it was a miracle that no one was hurt. In view of the name of the place where it crashed, that comes as no surprise to me.
I agree that it is necessary to allay the anxieties of people using Exeter airport. The accident investigation branch of the Department of Trade is responsible for gaining information from the Spanish authorities. Two senior investigators have already been sent to Spain and they have received full co-operation from the Spanish authorities. I understand my hon. Friend's desire to allay anxieties, but the investigation is still in progress. He asked whether a report would be published. On completion of the investigation, a report will be made by the Department of Trade. Once that report has been compiled by the chief inspector of accidents it will be laid before the Secretary of State for approval. I cannot go further than that, because the Department is in no position at this stage—nor am I—to make a statement on the apportionment of responsibility for the accident.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) raised a particular case, the circumstances of which have been the subject of an investigation

and decision by the insurance commissioners—a decision which was upheld by the local appeal tribunal. It is now for the aggrieved parties, if they wish, to appeal to the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
On the general point of policy which the right hon. and learned Member raised, this Government, like their predecessor, have no plans to move in the direction suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which would, if followed, make it financially easier for potential beneficiaries from a dispute to encourage their colleagues to strike, secure in the knowledge that they themselves could draw unemployment benefit while the dispute lasted. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will realise that there has not been a change of policy. I hope that that point will also be noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), who also has a constituency interest in these matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) raised a point relating to boundary changes. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has submitted its report to the Home Secretary proposing new electoral arrangements for the county of Hertfordshire. A statutory minimum period of six weeks must elapse before the Home Secretary may make an order implementing the Commission's recommendations, with or without modifications. During that period, representations may be made to the Home Secretary, which he will then take into account when he considers the commission's report. That will, of course, include the representations made by my hon. Friend, and others that he has forwarded.
I can tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) that the Government are well aware of the impact of rising electricity and gas prices, particularly on energy-intensive industries such as steel. The fuel element accounts for 60 per cent. of the CEGB's costs, of which coal accounts for more than 70 per cent. As to steel pricing policy, the low level of steel prices results from a downturn in the Community steel market this year. At the Council on 22 July, the Minister of State, Department of Industry supported the Commission's


action in securing Community co-operation to prevent excess production from causing further damage.
The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge on education were of great interest. I do not know whether it is necessarily the solution to British industry to ensure that it is staffed entirely by products of the British public schools.

Mr. Stokes: I did not say that.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am exaggerating and am being unfair to my hon. Friend, but it is an interesting thought which should be extended. It is not only before the public schools that the opportunities for serving British industry should be placed. They should be placed before the sixth forms of every school in the country. It is true that the country's wealth and future depend on our success in industry and commerce.
Whatever may have been the case in the past for people going into the Civil Service, the Armed Forces or the Colonial Service, those conditions have now changed. As my hon. Friend indicated, we should give much greater emphasis to the importance of careers in industry. I certainly endorse that. I regret bitterly the totalitarian turn which the Labour Party is in danger of taking in its education policy, because it is that no less which would be involved in preventing parents from exercising their fundamental right of choice.
We have been over this course before. I remember the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) making a similiar speech in respect of the document which has been produced by the relevant education commission of the Labour Party. In the end it came to nothing, and it is certainly my sincere hope that this, too, will be consigned to the dustbin of reports which, because of their deep philosophical and practical flaws, cannot be allowed to become part of the policy of any party which claims to be an alternative Government in this country. It would violate the right of parents to choose the education of their children—a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Edwards) mentioned

Bilston steelworks and the disappointment of the people of Bilston that their area had not been included in the recently announced list of enterprise zones. Several areas were disappointed, particularly those which had been invited to put in bids and did so when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his announcement at the time of the Budget.
Several other authorities made bids, although they were not invited to do so. But it was clear all along that only a limited number of sites could be declared as enterprise zones. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has been disappointed but a measure of disappointment is inevitable when there are more bids than sites available. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety concerning the closure of Bilston steelworks, but that is not a matter for the Government; it is a matter for the British Steel Corporation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), who is an authority on pensions matters, made a most interesting speech. Mobility of labour—my hon. Friend has shown some mobility and moved out of the Chamber—is extremely important for the future of our country. One possible improvement in that sphere would be transferability of pension rights. That question has been referred by the Government to the Occupational Pensions Board, and its report is expected by the spring of next year.
I listened with interest to the contribution of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), who is also an example of the mobility of labour in this House and is not here at the moment. He asked for an early announcement on the future of the Port Talbot steelworks. As was foreshadowed in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 26 June, the BSC is carrying out a further review of the capacity of its steelworks but has as yet reached no conclusion on the Port Talbot steelworks or the Llanwern steelworks.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also mentioned the BSC apprenticeship school at Port Talbot. That question again is one for the British Steel Corporation and should be raised there by the hon. Member.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) raised


an interesting point concerning the Manchester city council. He pointed to the fact that employees there have risen in numbers, as have rent increases, due to the fact that the tackling of the problem had been so long postponed.
All local authorities have been asked to review their budgets to bring them into line with the Government's overall expenditure plans. The targets we set last autumn asked local authorities to spend 2 per cent. less in real terms on current spending in 1980–81 compared with 1978–79. Authorities are now producing those budgets and it is our firm intention to see that the total comes back into line.
My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) made a point about water authorities. He asked me to have a quiet word with my right hon. Friend who is responsible for these matters. I shall take that advice and not go into the technicalities involved in the problem.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) referred once again to car sharing. I am sorry that he is not satisfied with the Government's response. It is our intention to introduce legislative proposals as soon as possible to bring the law on car sharing facilities in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain. The pressure of the parliamentary timetable is such that it would not be feasible to promote such a measure in isolation. It is our intention to include it in a miscellaneous Northern Ireland transport measure as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport did when introducing his recently enacted Transport Act.
The future of the paper and board industry was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) and the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White). They made detailed and technical speeches which, had they been raised in the Consolidated Fund debate, where we had anticipated hearing them, would have received detailed and technical replies. In an Adjournment debate of this sort I cannot give a reply of that nature.
The Government do not underestimate the difficulties faced by the industry, especially our newsprint producers. The only real answer for the industry and for

the whole British industry is to become internationally competitive. Productivity and investment are areas in which it is necessary to match our international competitors. Import controls are not the answer. They would breach our treaty obligations, risk retaliation, protect inefficiency and delay necessary adjustments. In the long run the cure would be worse than the disease.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) spoke of the fluoridation of water supplies and introduced some interesting evidence that was challenged immediately by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mrs. Faith).

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. Friend was wrong.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton thinks that my hon. Friend the Member for Belper was wrong. I dare say that she thinks that he was wrong. Please do not look to me to give the judgment of Solomon on fluoridation. My right hon. Friend will continue to study any properly documented claims on the subject. I am informed by him that he has not seen any valid evidence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. That is not established by the evidence.
The hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) drew our attention to derelict sites and the dangers to children who may wander on to them. He reminded us of the recent tragic case that I am sure we all bear in mind, of the child who was drowned on the Wandsworth gas works site. I express the sympathy of everyone in the House to the parents of that child for that dreadful accident. I shall be drawing the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) asked about the privatisation of British Shipbuilders. As is well known, or should be well known, the Government are studying possible options for introducing private capital into British Shipbuilders. It is hoped to make an announcement before the House rises for the Summer Recess. It would be absurd of me to attempt to anticipate a statement that will be made to the House very shortly.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) referred to violence in Northern Ireland and rightly drew our attention to the reality that by the time that the House returns after the recess many more people will have suffered death and injury by violence in the Province. That is an appalling situation which everyone in the House condemns. The Provisional IRA could not survive for long if it depended only on the support that it receives in Northern Ireland. Its campaign has survived because it has been financed from overseas, especially, I regret to say, from the United States. I hope that that supply of finance can be cut off. The vigorous policies that are being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may lead to an improvement in the Province.
The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) raised the subject of Mr. Richards, of 14 Moiden Road, St. Julians district, Newport. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his zeal for his constituency. I followed the complicated account that he gave, and it showed that he had a detailed knowledge of the issue. It would be absurd of me to enter into a discussion of such a constituency matter. However, I shall draw the issue to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and ask him to look into the matter at the behest of the hon. Gentleman.
An important issue was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) in relation to Mr. Humphry Berkeley. He was a distinguished Member of Parliament. He was involved in an incident in Africa. The Government have made representations to the South African Government about the alleged attack on Mr. Berkeley. I believe that he visited South Africa earlier this year in order to press his case. He has not contacted us for assistance since then. If he wishes the Government to intervene further, I am sure that he will contact us.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) asked when the October unemployment figures would be given. It is expected that they will be given on 21 October. I hope that that piece of information will satisfy him. I

also hope that it will prove reliable, as otherwise he will demand an explanation from me when we return on 27 October. The best information available indicates that that will be the date.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about buying British. The Government's general policy is that we should prefer it if everyone who could do so bought British whenever possible. However, that does not remove from individual firms the obligation to be competitive and to offer goods of a satisfactory quality. I am well aware of the situation, as I have a constituency problem in relation to Marconi and radar contracts. I have told Marconi that if it wishes to be successful with its contracts it must ensure that it is competitive. However, we must take into account that hidden subsidies may be given by foreign firms, which are not available to British firms.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) raised the question of Cyprus and said that there was an urgent need for intercommunal talks to be resumed. Dr. Waldheim's efforts continue, despite the failure in June to secure agreement to a resumption. We support the efforts of the United Nations, which were recently endorsed by the Security Council. We shall continue to follow events closely. At present, there is no scope for a separate British initiative, which would cut across that of the United Nations. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's sentiments and wishes to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
In the limited time available I have done my best to answer the wide variety of points that hon. Members have raised.

Mr. Cryer: Before the Leader of the House sits down—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): I think that the Leader of the House has sat down.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 27 October and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts which have been agreed upon by both Houses.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL)

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.—[Mr. Wakehatn.]

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to delay the proceedings of the House, but, despite what the Leader of the House has said, I hope that there will be a debate on the paper and board industry tomorrow morning. I wish to establish whether it is within your power, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that a Minister other than a Minister from the Department of Industry will reply on behalf of the Government. Much of the debate will depend on energy subsidies and the Government's energy pricing strategy. If a Department of Industry brief is to be read in response to the debate, it must be in order for a Minister from the Department of Energy to read that brief and to take interventions from the Floor about the Government's energy pricing strategy. Will you raise that issue with the Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): The topic is to be discussed in due course. Which Minister answers a debate is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's point will be noted.

Orders of the Day — MOTOR INDUSTRY

Mr. George Park: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the motor industry and to draw attention to the fact that world-wide the industry is in recession, with one significant exception—Japan. In the first half of 1980 Japan put 3 million cars on the world's roads. Last month, in a drastically reduced home market, the Japanese sold more cars than British Leyland, but we still rely on a gentleman's agreement to contain these soaring imports. We play the trade game according to the


rules of croquet, whereas the Japanese practise judo world-wide.
Following Japanese exports of 1·7 million cars into America, 300,000 American car workers were sacked or laid off. That led the American Government not only to give direct financial help to Chrysler but to try to give its car manufacturers a breathing space to retool for smaller models by the introduction of a new industry policy. That seeks to force Britain and other European trading nations to absorb the excess of Japanese cars which is troubling the American market. Later, I have no doubt, we shall be expected to absorb the new smaller models from the American plants.
In France, Citroen shut down production for seven days. French Talbot declared longer than usual breaks at Christmas and the new year and closed its plants for six days in the first four months of 1980. Its workers are now on short time, as are the workers in the French Ford plants. The French Government have told the Japanese bluntly that the car industry is too important to the economy to allow the present position to continue.
Fiat in Italy has announced that 78,000 of 114,000 workers are to be laid off. Even in Germany 4,000 workers have been sacked by Opel. There is also short-time working at Ford's in Germany, as there is at Volvo in Holland and for the bulk of the 32,000 car workers in Spain.
In Britain 18,500 jobs have gone from British Leyland with more to come at Canley in Coventry and in the body shops at Swindon following the pending closure of MG and the slump of its potential rescuers, Aston Martin, which is sacking one-fifth of its work force. That seems to be the fate of more than one rescuer. Armstrong Equipment, which tried to rescue the Meriden motor-cycle business, is chopping 1,500 jobs from its labour force of 6,500. In West Bromwich the old Jensen plant is now the United Kingdom base for the Japanese Subaru. British Talbot has sacked 2,500 workers. Another plant in Coventry is almost completely dependent on a contract from Iran.

Mr. William Wilson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the contract that Talbot has

with Iran. Can he tell the House that the existence of Talbot in Coventry, and probably Talbot in this country, depends upon the implementation of that contract with Iran, which is held primarily by the factories in Coventry?

Mr. Park: I am grateful for that intervention. There is no doubt that the livelihoods and jobs of those in the Stoke works in Coventry are perched on a knife-edge. It cannot be reassuring for them to know that their livelihood depends on events in Iran.
The previous Government had to give the factory temporary employment subsidy to help it over a difficulty and there are now doubts about the future of the other Talbot plant near Coventry because of the situation in France that I have outlined.
Every week there are announcements of sackings and layoffs, but none of that is news to the Government. In his capacity as president of the Committee of Common Market Automobile Constructors, Sir Michael Edwardes wrote to Commissioner Davignon on 27 June and to member Governments spelling out the degree of Japanese penetration and the fact that it was largely due to the depreciation of the yen by nearly 20 per cent. over the past 18 months. The letter also expressed doubt whether the present market situation came within the GATT. I hope that the Minister will touch on that aspect in his reply.
The pressure in Britain is greater than elsewhere, largely because of three abnormal factors in our economy that were referred to in the previous debate and in Question Time earlier today—the strong pound, the steep increase in the rate of inflation, and high interest rates.
The rate of exchange normally reflects the general state of a country's industrial wealth. If industry is not performing well, the currency weakens. The cost of imported goods rises—protecting the domestic industry—and the price of exports goes down, making it easier to sell abroad. If the currency strengthens, imports become cheaper and export prices rise.
North Seal oil has distorted that situation and our rate of exchange does not properly reflect the state of British industry. That has meant a savage reduction in profit margins on exports. Vehicles


are having to be sold at a loss, as in the case of MG, because if prices are raised the goods are no longer competitive.
In the Government's ideological haste to distance themselves from involvement with industry and their inability or unwillingness to manage the exchange rate for the pound, they are not putting the temporary bonus of North Sea oil to work to regenerate our industry.
Britain has become the most profitable market for any foreign manufacturer. In a period of one year, the profits for Italian imports into Britain have gone up by one-half, the profits for France and Germany have doubled, and those for Japan have quadrupled. Our trade in complete motor vehicles is out of balance.
When selective import controls are mentioned, as they were in the previous debate, the Government express fears about retaliation. They should consider the fact that in 1979 we imported 720,000 vehicles from the EEC and exported 140,000; we imported 199,000 from Japan and exported 2,500; we imported 39,000 from Eastern Europe and exported 400; and we imported 50,000 from Spain and exported 300. How much retaliation can be exerted on those figures?
In present circumstances, apparently it is profitable for Citroen to establish a marketing office in Leamington for its machine tools, transfer lines and specialised motor industry equipment. It has already sold equipment to the Ford tractor plant at Basildon and currently is quoting for BL equipment. This points to the increasing tendency of the British machine tool industry to act as agent, rather than as manufacturer. However, that may be the subject of a debate on another day.
Any Government must seek to keep inflation under control, but no Government should be actively promoting recession. No Government, especially one who deliberately increased inflation within weeks of taking office, should consider that any remedy is justified. No Government should use unemployment as an instrument of policy.
Inflation means that a manufacturer in Britain buying his raw materials here pays more for them than his counterpart

in other industrial countries. But the accusation often made by the Prime Minister that workers are creating unemployment by excessive wage demands cannot be levelled at the 160,000 employees of BL who settled for a basic 5 per cent. increase for 1980 and who achieved a record of 98 per cent. of available man hours free of strikes or disruptions in the first half of 1980.
In the debate on the West Midlands on 20 June, the Minister of State, Department of Industry, admitted that interest rates, inflation and the high level of the pound were the immediate causes of industry's current problems. But he went on to repeat the parrot cry that we hear from Minister after Minister "You are not sufficiently competitive". With the thousands of people shed in the past year, the reason can hardly be overmanning. I think that it is more a question of better facilities and more funds for research and development.

Mr. John Patten: The hon. Member speaks of facilities and increased investment. Does he not agree that some, though not all, of those who have been made redundant find themselves redundant because of the introduction of investment for robotics and machine-assisted ways of production? Unless BL and other companies modernise in this way, with the absolute concomitant that some labour will have to be shed, BL will not succeed.

Mr. Park: I do not disagree. But, that having been said, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) has to go a stage further. He has to accept that by introducing new methods of production, by introducing robots, as has been done on the Metro line, and by being able to achieve the same level or an even higher level of production with less labour, either we have to aim for a greater share of the market to maintain a greater labour force or we have to look at the other aspects to which the trade union movement has made reference many times—those of a shorter working week and trying to line up our holidays with those enjoyed on the Continent. At present, our wage levels are considerably lower than they are on the Continent. Therefore, although I accept what the hon. Gentleman said, I urge him to look at the other side of the coin as well.
When the hon. Member for Oxford intervened I had just referred to the speech by the Minister of State on 20 June. He did not tell us how industry was expected to invest in modern, cost-effective equipment with interest rates at their present penal levels. How are manufacturing stocks to be funded? How do car dealers fill their showrooms? The Minister did not give the answers to any of those questions.
On 10 December, with the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), I led a delegation to see Ministers at the Departments of Industry and Trade. Those Ministers were told by major manufacturers of components for the motor industry, employing about 440,000 people, that they had reached the limit of development using normal commercial solutions and for them to continue trading internationally and domestically they now had to look to the Government to create a fair trading environment. So far, they have looked in vain. They appeal for decisive action to combat the situation that the United Kingdom is currently open to all-corners without the restrictions that they find in world markets. They drew attention to the freeing of franchise arrangements as favoured by the Price Commission in a report now with the Office of Fair Trading. They ask that our copyright rules be brought into line with those in other countries to stop the counterfeiting that is going on with brand names. If nothing is done about type approvals, required by foreign Governments, especially for lorries, we should erect our own non-tariff barriers, acting with the same commercial concern for industry as most of our competitors, both in the EEC and internationally.
There should be searching inquiry into the American DISC system, Comecon dumping and local content rules. For example, Brazil requires an 84 per cent. local content and Spain 75 per cent. We have no such requirements. These are all areas for Government action, and time is not on our side. It is predicted by experts in the motor industry that by the end of the 1980s only six volume car manufacturers will exist in the world, each producing a minimum of 2 million units a year. If this is so, it is essential that one of them should be located in Britain, especially when one takes into

account the impact on other industries, such as steel, textiles and glass, that are already struggling.
Apart from components, there is at present only one volume producer of vehicles, which has its basic policy decisions taken in Britain. That is BL. So far I have not mentioned Government financial support, but I hope that it is clear from the situation that I have outlined that BL cannot be expected to generate, within a reasonable time scale, the cash flow necessary to continue with its policies of adopting the latest production techniques, as in the case of the Metro, the design techniques in the drawing office at Pressed Steel Fisher and new concepts like the economy car or the next new models.
The Metro, the Ital and the Bounty may enable BL to advance only slightly or even just tread water. If it is to obtain a greater market share, the next new models need funding now in order to retain a United Kingdom vehicle industry. From the present shambles, the Government see emerging a tougher leaner industry, ready for the challenges of the 1980s, but unless some action is taken on the points that I have raised, what is more probable is a leaner, scrawnier industry more ready for the chop.

Mr. John Butcher: The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and I have had this debate—almost a private debate—on many occasions. As we are time-constrained and a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, I have undertaken to say that I will not detain the House for more than five minutes. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry—the Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall)—on the Front Bench. I am sure that he will deal adequately with any flak flying around the Chamber. I hope that he will appreciate that my remarks and many of those of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East concern the Department of Trade as opposed to the Department of Industry.
I should like to concentrate on what amounts almost to an injustice—the practice of tied franchise dealer arrangements, whereby a car manufacturer, foreign or domestic, can stipulate that his dealers in


the after-market can sell only those parts of which he approves. Therefore, Fiat et Volkswagen, for example, can stipulate that its British dealers must buy their parts from the original German or Italian suppliers.
That is an unfair trading practice. Thankfully, it is now highlighted even more by this Government's recent legislation on competition, which has empowered the Director General of Fair Trading to consider the effect of such monopolies, which eliminate free competition and create unfair pricing, thus causing the consumer to suffer.
The components industry, quite apart from the motor manufacturers, employs over 400,000 people and is of strategic importance. My concern is for free and fair competition in the supplier parts market. I am delighted that, contrary to some feelings held outside the House in the industry, the Minister for Consumer Affairs has fully endorsed the famous yellow book entitled "Prices, costs and margins in manufacturing and distribution of car parts." My right hon. Friend has sent it to the Director General of Fair Trading to investigate this aspect of motor trading under the monopolies provisions of the Competition Act.
My right hon. Friend has, therefore, done everything that she is empowered or obliged to do, but there is one problem. The Director General, by virtue of his office and of the fact that he has to be seen to operate fairly, decides which products to investigate. It is not the Minister's role to point to a particular scandal or injustice. He must make the decision alone. Therefore, the best help that we can give our friends in the motor industry, particularly in the Midlands, is to generate a debate in which the strategic, economic and social importance of the components industry is recognised nationally. I hope that in that context, since the Government have discharged their duties, the Director General will be left in no doubt where his major duty lies at this moment.

Mr. Julius Silverman: The components industry is, of course, a part of the motor industry as a whole and is not likely to be separated from it, so it stands to reason that a depression

in the motor industry will affect the components industry—as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) will readily agree.
I want to start from a constituency angle. In the motor car industry—not merely the motor car manufacturers but the producers of accessories and components—no fewer than 10,000 jobs have disappeared in my constituency in the last 18 months, or have been announced to disappear. A large part of the Pressed Steel Fisher plant of British Leyland has closed and redundancies have been declared at Dunlop. More recently, I and other Birmingham Members have heard of the proposed closure of another plant in my constituency—Forgings and Pressings of Witton—which is a part of GKN and which caters largely, or almost entirely, for the motor car industry. That will be a terrific blow to my constituency, quite apart from the small companies which are also involved. If the motor car industry collapses the social and economic consequences in the West Midlands will be a complete and utter disaster. The effect upon our economy as a whole will be equally disastrous.
I mention that as an example of what is going on, bearing in mind that the full impact of these events has not yet struck. Many redundancies have been announced which have not yet taken place. To a large extent the recession in the domestic car industry is a reflection of the recession in the car industry throughout the Western world, and it is true that the Government can do nothing about the problem unilaterally. However, I believe that certain things can be done.
Some aspects of Government policy have undoubtedly hit the car industry. The rate of exchange imposes an enormous competitive burden on the industry. It is no good the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Industry saying that the industry must be competitive when, at the same time, the Government are imposing burdens which make British industry uncompetitive to the extent of about 20 per cent. That is a large margin in relation to profits and costs.
Interest rates obviously affect the provision of capital, quite apart from Government policy on the free export of capital. That, undoubtedly, has resulted in British capital being invested in various


portfolios and projects in Europe and all over the world when it is required for investment in this country now.
Industrialists in my constituency have mentioned the costs imposed by the Government for energy, including gas and electricity. Those represent an additional burden no less in the car industry than in any other industry. Something can be done about that.
However, our major problem is import penetration. Current figures are calamitous when one considers the gradual and steady growth in motor car import penetration as well as import penetration of other goods. That penetration now amounts to well over 50 per cent. of the total market in this country. I have said before that that cannot be the result of our motor cars being entirely uncompetitive, because we succeed in selling a substantial number of cars throughout the world. British Leyland is having considerable success in selling its products. Our products cannot be entirely uncompetitive when we know that there is an opening for our exports throughout the world.
When one talks about free world competition one recalls that in the past we were a great industrial nation exporting manufactured goods in return for the raw materials that we needed. We could afford to be a free nation in those circumstances. Now, when the manufactured goods that we import are almost equivalent to those that we export, we are in an entirely different ball game. We shall certainly need to review our attitude to this problem in the near future.
It has already been said that various non-tariff barriers are being put up against our goods. We are not very clever at putting up such barriers. Some of them are technological barriers. There are hidden subsidies, tied franchises and all the other various methods which allow countries to exclude imports. This country will, therefore, certainly have to review its policy on import controls. I forecast that the case for selective import controls in order to protect the livelihoods of our people and our industry will find more and more support on both sides of the House, and that in the very near future the cry for such controls will certainly become irresistible to any Government.

Mr. Jocelyn Cadbury: I share the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) about the level of redundancies in the motor industry. I share his concern also about the level of imports. I do not entirely agree with him about the reason for those imports. I believe that it is much more connected with our level of competitiveness than with other factors.
I shall deal first with import penetration and then refer to some recent comments by Mr. Bill Hayden, chairman of Ford of Europe, after his recent visit to Japan. Finally, I want to deal with areas of Government policy for the motor industry where a more positive strategy is needed.
Hon. Members will be aware that car imports for the first half of this year have captured 57½ per cent. of the market. A factor that has gone relatively unnoticed is the parallel and surreptitious invasion of commercial vehicle imports. In the first six months of this year imports of goods vehicles of less than three tonnes rose by 30 per cent. in value, and imports of those of over three tonnes by 21 per cent. It is disturbing to note the rate at which the Japanese have increased their share of the van and four-wheel drive markets. They now have 36 per cent. of a province where once Land Rover had a virtual monopoly. I find that extremely alarming.
While the Japanese may be adhering to the so-called prudent level of car imports, they are doing serious damage to the British commercial vehicle industry. Let us not forget, however, that by far the largest exporters of vehicles to this country are the Common Market countries. Renault, for example, has about 6½ per cent. of the United Kingdom market—more than half the total of Japanese imports. It is sobering to realise that we have failed to stem the tide of vehicles from Wolfsburg, Rouen and Turin, let alone the flood that is coming from Osaka.
It is important that we do not try to conceal from ourselves the reasons why Japanese car producers have been able to build up such an awesome lead, not only over our car industry but over the


European car industry as a whole. That is why I want to quote some of the points made by Mr. Hayden recently. As a result of his visit to Japan he discovered that the Japanese success was due 50 per cent. due to the level of automation and 50 per cent. to the level of dedication of Japanese managers and work people.
There are some specific aspects of Japanese factory organisation that he highlighted that will strike a chord with anyone who has worked, as I have, as a production manager in a British factory. I admit that I worked in a somewhat different industry, but it is surprising how similar are organisations such as maintenance on different kinds of industry in this country. For example, in Japan production line workers do all the simple maintenance jobs on their machines, which means that skilled men can concentrate on the more difficult maintenance work. Such a system goes entirely against the traditional division of labour in British factories, but management and unions will have to face the matter very soon. Similarly, a Japanese press operator will change a die himself, but in a typical Ford plant in this country a team of skilled men is required. In the Toyota body stamping plant a die change takes only 10 minutes, but in a United Kingdom Ford factory, it takes three or four hours. The difference in the way that maintenance is organised is one reason why the productivity of skilled labour in British factories is four to 10 times less than in Japanese factories.
A further important factor mentioned by Mr. Hayden is that Japanese car plants run with scarcely any stocks of components. That is possible because their computer-controlled supply system are so efficient, the quality of their components so good and their factories so strike-free that there is no need to stockpile parts. In a Japanese car factory one may find 12 engine blocks waiting at the head of the line, whereas in a Ford factory there will be two or three days' stock. That gives Japanese companies enormous advantages in keeping working capital to a minimum. Again, we shall have to take note of that.
Mr. Hayden made a further general point that is of great significance to us in the House. In Japan the link between Government, education and industry is so

absolute that they are virtually indistinguishable. The system ensures that nothing gets in the way of industry, especially exporting industry.
All these and many other factors explain why Nissan can make the Datsun Cherry in Japan for £1,225 and sell them for £1,661. The same car sells here for only £2,221. Far from dumping cars here, the Japanese are making more profit in Britain than in their own country.

Mr. Tom Benyon: Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason for the imbalance in the motor car trade between ourselves and Japan is that the yen is at an all-time high and the pound is at an all-time high? A further reason is that the Japanese have tied up their internal dealer network in small lots in Japan, whereas we have not. They also have regulations that make it extremely difficult for us to export cars to Japan, but we do not have such regulations. Those are three matters on which the Government can take action.

Mr. Cadbury: I accept that the exchange rate has made life much easier for the Japanese and much more difficult for us. However, with the extraordinary differences in price and efficiency, I cannot accept that even a considerable devaluation of the pound would make any difference. The Japanese would still be far more competitive than we could ever be. They have the scope to cut their prices even further if a price war takes place, which is even more worrying.
Faced with that apparently desperate situation, what should we, and particularly the Government, do? We must learn from the Japanese the importance of industry and Government working together. As a nation we must adopt a wholly new philosophy. Everyone—management, unions, Government and our education system—must work in unison to improve productivity, push back imports and increase exports.
The Government need to act with a greater sense of urgency in specific areas. Here I am in agreement with previous speakers. I am an optimist, but, in the light of Bill Hayden's comments it is inconceivable that we can raise the efficiency of our car industry to Japanese levels in the short term. The Japanese car industry will not stand still and let us catch up. It is a moving target, and that makes it


even more difficult. Therefore, the Government must put maximum pressure on Japanese manufacturers to adhere to the existing informal understanding that imports into the United Kingdom should not exceed 10 per cent. They must make it clear to the Japanese that if they fail to keep to the 10 per cent. the voluntary controls will become formal and will be enforced.

Mr. John Townend: Why does my hon. Friend think it should be 10 per cent.? I understand that the French have been able to restrict Japanese imports to 3 per cent. in recent years. However, import penetration in other EEC countries has been higher than that.

Mr. Cadbury: If Japanese car companies are not prepared to buy more British components, to trade freely and to make it easier for European and British car manufacturers to export their vehicles to Japan, we should demand that they reduce their imports to about 5 per cent. That would be reasonable. It is also important that the Japanese should be asked to cut down their sales of vans and four-wheel drive vehicles to 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom market and to hold them at that level.
The Ministry of Transport should move more rapidly to ensure that administrative controls on imports are at least equivalent to those imposed by our competitors.
Recently, I talked to a manager from the Leyland Truck Company who said that it is possible to have a new Renault truck on the roads in this country within a few weeks, whereas the equivalent British Leyland truck would probably take over a year to pass all the regulations and get on to the French roads. This is an injustice. I cannot accept that it needs to take until April 1982 to introduce type approval for imported trucks. We need a greater sense of urgency by Government Departments. After all, we are talking about the survival of an industry.
I turn now to the subject of financing for British Leyland. I ask the Government to take note of what has been achieved by British Leyland under the leadership of Sir Michael Edwardes against enormous odds. The new Mini Metro will generate much of the cash for

future models, but additional capital will be needed if the LC 10 and the AM 2 are to be developed successfully. Therefore, I ask the Government to recognise that if BL is starved of investment capital it will die, with all the consequences for unemployment of which the Minister is aware. It is not possible to run a business the size of British Leyland on a trickle-feed basis. Now is the time to start funding the LC 10, which is due to be brought out at the end of 1982 and is a crucial addition to the new model range.
I turn briefly to the role of management and unions. The challenge facing management in the short term is to raise the efficiency of our car plants to the levels of our European competitors. That is possible if the motivation of the work force can be raised. Those who went on the all-party motor industry committee visit to Renault some weeks ago saw factories which were efficiently run and where the manning was tightly controlled, but Renault was not so far ahead of us in terms of automation. The new Metro facility at Longbridge has put British Leyland ahead of the Europeans in some respects. Therefore, this should not be an impossible target.
Productivity is not the only factor. There must be a relentless drive to improve the quality of British vehicles. If the British public can see that a British car is as well designed and finished as its foreign equivalent, they will return to buying British cars in large numbers. But doors must fit properly and bits must not fall off. Attention to detail is the order of the day.
I turn to the role of the trade unions. I certainly do not underestimate the difficulties facing union leaders in the car industry at present. They are being asked to agree to revolutionary changes in manning at a time of high unemployment. However, I am happy to report that considerable progress has been made at the Longbridge plant in terms of industrial relations. That is particularly true of the new Metro facility where, for example, on the Kuka welding machines, instead of the entrie range of crafts being represented, maintenance teams have been established with union agreement consisting only of electricians and fitters. That will mean a much faster response to


machine breakdowns, because fewer separate crafts and management hierarchies will be involved.
I believe that our motor industry needs some protection from the Japanese. Therefore, the Government must take a firm line on imports from that country. At the same time, the British motor industry must make strenuous efforts to raise its efficiency at least to European levels. It is the role of the Government to remove the obstacles to the revival of our motor industry. It is up to management, unions and the work force to bring that revival about.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not think that this is a controversial debate. There may be some differences in emphasis between us, but basically I accept the diagnosis of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury). All the constituencies represented in this debate face a common problem. Over the last few months, all of us have repeatedly referred to the onset of unemployment among our electors, to the closure of plant after plant, to short-time working, to redundancies among people in the prime of their working lives—some with a lifetime of service behind them—to hopelessness among school leavers and to increasing numbers of unemployed chasing a diminishing number of vacancies.
I do not think that this is merely a syndrome of the depression, because some of it is not cyclical in nature. We are losing markets which are irrecoverable. We are draining away skills which are irreplaceable. Apprenticeships are being denied to young people, who for ever will lose the prospect of that training. We have just had a report from the Manpower Services Commission on training in this country, and there was a disturbing comment on it in The Observer on Sunday.
We have had explanations for all that during the debate, and I do not think that there is much division between the two sides of the House. It is to do partly with high interest rates, partly with the consequent exchange rate of the pound, partly with inflation and partly with competition from foreign producers whose

Governments shower them with advantages which are denied to producers in this country. In that situation it is not surprising that some of us have felt the need to look particularly at the vehicle building industry. That, more than any other factor in our lifetime, has dominated industry in the West Midlands.
I was pleased that at an early stage in the debate the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) introduced a discussion about the components industry. While many of my constituents work in car assembly plants, particularly at Longbridge, I specially want to say something this evening about the many firms—some big and some small workshops on street corners—which produce components for the car industry.
When car manufacturers went into business and expanded rapidly in the 1920s they needed to establish assembly plants near to a flourishing engineering industry. They found one in the West Midlands. They found an engineering industry which was highly diversified and which could produce virtually all their needs. They found companies making nuts and bolts, screws, brass products and pressed steel products as well as foundries, makers of springs, tubes, plating, leather goods and paint. All of them were there among the communities in the West Midlands. The car industry brought them a new prosperity, but in return it made very great demands on them. In place of the special orders in which they used to deal, it required vast quantities of standard products, and the engineering industry totally restructured itself for that purpose.
Within the 30 years from 1920 to 1950 the car industry changed the whole character of the West Midlands. Some of the earlier industries had contracted, in some cases almost to extinction—saddlery, nail making and wheel making—while special light steels, laminated springs, precision tubes and rivets all flourished.
Then, as the vast numbers of standard parts were required, the processes were broken down. The comprehensive skills of toolmakers such as my father were replaced by narrower and more specialised skills, some of them appropriate only to particular toolrooms. The industry was organised to depend more or less upon


an even flow of orders. The components—which in many cases were wanted in millions—required storage space, and storage space to cope with more than a few day's production was usually not available. The capital wrapped up in those components meant that if the process was interrupted for any length of time there was a serious cash flow problem. There were relatively high earnings for those who had not served apprenticeships if they were prepared to do tiring and repetitious physical work in unnattractive jobs.
Those with engineering skills found that they could earn more money by leaving their engineering jobs and going elsewhere. Those contemplating taking apprenticeships saw little point in acquiring the skills, and that in turn led to a further breaking down of the processes to dispense further with the need for the old skills. So industry in the West Midlands was left with a high proportion of its work force in boring work, sometimes with very little job satisfaction, and toolmakers were left with the kinds of frustrations which led to the toolroom strike of 1977.
The hon. Member for Northfield will not be surprised if anxiety among the maintenance staff has led to the kinds of problems which, as he pointed out, do not exist in Japan, because the history of the industry still lies heavily on the present in this country.
The car industry changed the whole character of the area, even for those who were not directly concerned in producing for the industry. If the car industry were to disappear today, the engineering industry in the West Midlands would never be the same again.
I am not complaining. This all brought great prosperity to the area. We can only be grateful. But the region became over-dependent on one industry. If that industry contracts, it entails not merely reductions in its own work force; it carries with it contractions in the whole of the engineering industry of the West Midlands, and drags behind it the basic industries, such as steel and coal. So the car industry carries on its shoulders the whole prosperity of Britain's industry, and particularly of industry in the West Midlands, the cradle of the Industrial Revolution.
The car industry has recently not been proving successful against foreign competitors, either at home or in its markets abroad. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) said, there are several reasons for that. Partly it is to do with the position world-wide: partly, as the hon. Member for Northfield said, the fault is to be found within the industry itself.
We have seen with alarm a number of statistics, many of which have been quoted tonight. There was a recent table, produced by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, showing that the production of cars for the home market fell from 728,000 in 1978 to 678,000 in 1979. It is estimated that it will fall to 500,000 by 1981. Production for exports fell from 495,000 in 1978 to 392,000 in 1979. It is estimated that it will fall to 350,000 by 1981.
I accept that those statistics could be misleading because cars are assembled in one country from components produced in another. However, we are left with the clear impression that the trade is contracting. If the problem is largely one of scale—we are told repeatedly that it is—even British Leyland is substantially smaller than most of its competitors in America, in Japan or even in Europe. If British Leyland is already too small in comparison with its competitors and it becomes smaller, it will be caught in a descending spiral, and that will be reflected throughout the economy.
In an earlier debate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) commented—I think that the comment was repeated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman)—that we were approaching the stage when our net imports of manufactured goods will exceed our net exports. Some of the fault undoubtedly lies at the door of the industry. Never-lies at the door of the industry. Nothing much will be served by apportioning the blame. It is easy to blame management for mistaken decisions. Perhaps in many instances they were not easy decisions.
Does the industry offer the customer a wide range of models or does it go for fewer models and economies of scale? Does it concentrate on the home market and ensure that there is a proper flow of replacements, or does it push sales in overseas markets? If it wants overseas


markets, does it engage in dubious local practices of the sort which would not be acceptable in Britain? Does it have a large number of dealers, some of whom have to make up their income from carrying other products, or does it guarantee a good living to a more limited number of dealers? Does it have wage rates and working conditions negotiated at plant level or does it seek to standardise the structure throughout the organisation?
We might question some management decisions with the benefit of hindsight, but we can consider them with some sympathy. I do not seek to put the blame on management. It is too easy to blame the trade unions, too. Those who know the feelings of frustration among those who feel that they have not been consulted about these problems, a work force which feels that its members have been treated as "hands" with no job satisfaction, no room for decision making and no real participation, will understand why there has been a measure of industrial discontent.
Happily there are signs that all sides of the industry appreciate its peril and the peril of all those whose livelihoods depend upon a flourishing assembly industry. We have seen examples recently in the new Metro line. But those concerned will need substantial help if they are to give effect to that new resolution. For it is partly, too, a world-wide problem.
I seize the opportunity to raise two essential issues. First, it is impossible for any Government, however Manchester school their basic philosophy may be, completely to abdicate responsibility for the industry and to renounce any concern for it. Surely no Government can claim that they have no concern for what would be on the scale of a national disaster.
It is not true that British Leyland receives a greater proportion of Government assistance than some of its competitors elsewhere. Renault receives substantial support from the French Government. Chrysler receives substantial support from both the Federal and state Governments in the United States. Volkswagen receives a large measure of regional aid in Germany. The Japanese industry has a national banking system

at its disposal. Most of Britain's competitors have a single integrated research structure throughout their industry with Government research laboratories at their disposal as well as university research centres and industrial research and development depots. No one can pretend that Britain pampers its motor industry. I wish to announce a personal recantation. I have always believed in freeing international trade. My constituents largely depend on exports. It has never been part of my political principles to export unemployment to workers elsewhere, even if that were to prove a practical proposition.
I have been compelled to revise that conclusion in two ways. First, all the countries with which the car industry competes encourage their populations to buy their own products. They sponsor campaigns encouraging individuals to buy their own cars. They encourage companies to equip themselves with fleets of their own cars and commercial vehicles. Of course, most hon. Members here drive British Leyland cars—perhaps Sir Michael Edwardes was a little less than fair to some politicians a few months ago. But the Government could give a lead. I hope that they will give support to Sir Michael Edwardes' remarks.
Secondly, we have seen how the Governments of some other countries ensure that imports from Britain and other countries face every possible discouragement. The hon. Member for Northfield has already referred to some of those discouragements. Two obvious examples are Japan and Spain. Those countries should not be surprised if the United Kingdom does not welcome their exports. I have argued that point before, and I shall not labour it now. International competition can exist only when the competitors start from the same line. Of course, some types of restriction would infringe on our international obligations, and I do not urge them on the Government. But, many examples of non-tariff barriers operate elsewhere. There is no reason why they should not apply here.
Even in this area, some of the problems are of the industry's making. In a debate on 16 May, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Stechford (Mr. Davis) mentioned the decisions made by Ford, Vauxhall and Talbot to import vehicles


which will then be sold in Britain. The Government are entitled to tell the vehicle industry that its future is inextricably connected with Britain's future. They should tell the industry that, as the Government are willing to recognise their

responsibility, the industry should recognise its responsibility to its work force, its suppliers and to its consumers. If the industry succeeds, we shall all be winners. If it fails, it will drag us all into the pit.

Mr. Hal Miller: I am happy to speak after the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). I accept the importance that he attaches to the motor industry, not only in the West Midlands, but in the country as a whole. However, it would be difficult to deduce that from the attendance in the Chamber, which consists largely of hon. Members who represent constituencies in the West Midlands.
I sympathise with the Minister, as he is receiving a fair amount of shot and shell on subjects for which he is not directly responsible. However, with his considerable industrial experience he will appreciate the points that have been made. We feel that we are speaking to an open mind and an open heart. However, he is unable to be as forthcoming as he and we would wish, given the importance of the industry to the country's structure.
I must warn my hon. Friend the Minister that people all over the country—and on both sides of the Chamber—will regard the motor industry as the litmus test of the Government's policy towards industry. The Government's policy is not yet fully apparent. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) did not allude to the grant to Dunlop which has recently been announced. It was a considerable surprise to me. I do not know whether it is a first swallow making a summer or whether it is a special case. We should like to examine the matter further.
We believe that there is a need for the Government to demonstrate an urgency, a sense of realism and a sense of appreciation of the national interest, such as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister displayed so clearly in her dealings with the EEC on Britain's budget contribution. The echo that that aroused throughout the country encourages me to urge on the Minister a similar robust attitude towards the motor industry. An equal if not greater response is still to come.
I say that the Government should demonstrate a sense of urgency and realism in the national interest because the motor industry faces the twin threat

of a decline in demand matched, if not overtaken, by an increase in imports. That threatens not only the mechanical restructuring of the industry but the change in attitude which the Government were elected to bring about and which Sir Terence Beckett of Ford said in his evidence to the Select Committee was a precondition to bringing up our industry fully to international standards of competitiveness.
I accept the Government's priority of an attack on inflation. Inflation largely brought about the downfall of British Leyland in addition to other contributory factors which I have mentioned in previous discussions. I fully accept the need to be competitive by increasing productivity and quality. I welcome the Prime Minister's repetition of these themes. In BL giant strides have been taken towards the realisation of such aims.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) referred to our recent visit to Renault. We were encouraged when we saw that equipment there was not up to the standard of that at Longbridge and that its engine plant was even more outdated than some in our factories. The Renault plant is also over-manned and inefficient. But it has advantages. The aims can be achieved and are being achieved. The Metro line is equivalent to any Japanese wonder production line in the fully automated parts.
Productivity gains are being made. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) referred to unemployment and demanning. Sir Michael Edwardes made a remarkable achievement in the last two years in that 24,000 out of 130,000 of the work force—about 20 per cent.—have been made redundant. There has been a striking drop in employment in the firm. It is not sufficiently appreciated that the last six months have been 98 per cent. dispute-free at BL. That represents a fantastic change in attitude. I must admit that I was surprised to find out recently that there has been no strike at Bathgate in Scotland for the past two years, contrary to the impression that some people may have.
Considerable progress is being made, and it is appropriate to offer a tribute to the work force, who have accepted the need for greater productivity and


greater flexibility in manning, as was demonstrated recently by the stop and switch of production by BL between various models of which there were surplus stocks or for which there was excess demand. The changes of attitude, the flexibility and the competitiveness are to hand.
I was glad to read this morning an authoritative statement that the present inflationary effects are not the result of wage claims. There have not been excessive wage increases in the motor industry. In BL, wage increases have been 5 per cent. for the past two years. Hon. Members who feel hard done by should pause to reflect on the lot of those who have had 5 per cent. wage increases for two years running. One can understand their resentment and bitterness about those in the public service who have taken much greater increases without any apparent increase in effort, flexibility or adaptability.
A sense of realism is a keynote of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Administration. What could be more realistic than the open admission by the deputy chairman of BL before a Select Corn-tee that if the Metro fails the company will be prepared to abandon volume car production? That must be matched by equal realism on the part of the Government. If the car is a success—and that will be known fairly quickly; the Government cannot expect to be able to wait until next year before reaching a conclusion on the matter—long-term financing will be required for the entire model range. It may not be funded immediately. It may have to take the form of guarantees initially, but orders have to be placed now for the necessary machine tools to give effect to the production of those models.
We are sometimes rather shy about discussing dealers, but employment in garages and dealers downstream of production equals that in the car assemblers. The BL dealers need to be assured of a continuity of new models to enable them to hang on through the present difficult times. It is important to understand that. The BL dealers have been faced with a disastrous decline in market share and a high increase in costs, because of high interest rates. They have held on, demonstrating their loyalty, despite all the diffi-
culties, but they need to see some light at the end of the tunnel, because otherwise they will have no option but to go over to other franchises and thus to increase penetration.
All component manufacturers have been faced with a double jeopardy. Not only has there been a fall in demand from domestic assemblers but, because of our high exchange rate, many assemblers have had to import components in order to remain competitive on their finished product. That is particularly true in the tractor and agricultural machinery sector, which has had a disastrous result on foundries and forgings.
However, the same phenomenon is also present in motor car assembly. The component makers have faced a double threat, while being frustrated by the franchise agreements to which reference has been made. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) will be aware from his previous incarnation, some motor manufacturers have found their spare parts operation fairly profitable and would not necessarily welcome a relaxation of the franchise, for which a call has been made in the debate.
The exports of the component sector have been frustrated by the higher pound. The sector is also suffering, as I mentioned in a debate on West Midlands industry, from the disparity in fuel prices, notably gas and coking coal about which I had occasion to take a delegation to the Department of Energy last week. What is the rationale of the grant of £ 6 million to Dunlop? I hope that the Minister's thunder was not stolen by the Prime Minister, but the House is owed some explanation of the rationale behind the grant and how other firms may qualify or may be disqualified from similar treatment. This is a matter of public concern.
I have referred to the threat from imports. In that context, attention is obviously concentrated on Japan. We should well understand the position of Japan, an island country bereft of many natural resources, depending on manufacturing and exporting to support its population. We find ourselves in a similar position. The position achieved by Japan not only in this country but in America and in other European countries means


that a halt has to be called unless some irreparable damage is to be done.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the motor manufacturers anticipated, when Britain joined the EEC, imports of 25 to 30 per cent, including Japanese imports? We now have 57 per cent. imports, nearly half of them—at least 27 per cent.—from tied imports and nothing to do with Japan. Those tied imports mean that workers in my constituency making textiles for carpets are losing jobs. This affects textiles, safety belts and the whole paraphernalia of components. The effects are not as immediate in the constituency of my hon. Friend, but my constituency is affected by massive tied imports that make Japanese penetration look almost paltry.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, although I find it hard to swallow his description of Japanese imports as being paltry beside tied imports. He must be referring particularly to those of Ford. It was in evidence before the Select Committee of which he is a member that the chairman of Ford made it plain that those imports had been largely occasioned by failures of production in this country for one reason or another, and, in part, by reason of its model policy and the fact that it is European based for reasons of economy of scale to which the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West referred. I wish to deal with the question of scale of British Leyland in a moment.
Japanese penetration has now reached 22 per cent. in America, higher than that of the Ford Motor Corporation in its own back yard. This must be politically unacceptable. The penetration in Germany has increased. Contrary to popular belief, I think that the Japanese are making a dead set at Ford rather than BL on a world basis.
The immediate concern is the future of the current voluntary industry agreement under which the Japanese industry undertook to exercise prudence in exporting to this country. Prudence was generally understood to mean 10 or 11 per cent. of the market. Ten or 11 per cent. of the market last year is a very different thing from 10 or 11 per cent. of the market this year. If the Japanese were to continue to export at last year's

rate, they would end up with 18 to 20 per cent. of the market this year. The cause for concern is that their shipments are still increasing. Over the first six months of the year, they show an appreciable rise over last year.
That calls into question what prudence is in these circumstances.

Mr. Tom Benyon: Does not my hon. Friend agree that it would be absurd to ask a Japanese sales manager to exercise prudence voluntarily? Why should he? Not only is it alarming to see the flood of Japanese imports into Europe, with some 606,000 motor cars imported during the last year as opposed to their taking some 3,000 of ours. Ought not my hon. Friend to touch on the absurd anomalies of imports from Spain and Eastern Europe? In Spain, a tariff operates against us of 38 per cent., whereas operating against the Spanish is a tariff of 4 per cent. Eastern Europe exports 50,000 motor cars to us and accepts back 400. Does not my hon. Friend agree that the Government should take rapid steps to stop these totally inequitable balances against us?

Mr. Miller: I appreciate that my remarks have been lengthy, but I had intended to deal briefly with Spain and Eastern Europe. I was not trying to cover the whole gamut in my remarks, especially as the way had been paved for me by my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield.
As regards Japan, there is real concern about how this voluntary agreement is to run for the rest of the year. There is further concern that the Japanese are installing an additional 2 million vehicle capacity over the next two years and, therefore, there is great uncertainty about where those vehicles will be directed. It appears unlikely that they will be allowed into the United States of America. The conclusion is that they will come here.
I am not persuaded that Government action is necessarily the best way. We have to reckon with the difficulties of Japan and the peculiarities of the Japanese characteristics. I believe that the voluntary undertaking between the two industries has worked very well. All that I am trying to emphasise, perhaps in a rather Japanese manner, is that there is concern about the rest of this year and,


in view of the additional capacity being installed, in my view the industry-to-industry agreement will probably have to be expressed in terms of longer than a year to guard against what will result from the additional capacity.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said and the case he has been arguing against voluntary agreement, does he not consider that in the background at least there should be the threat of some form of statutory agreement? If the Japanese persist in exporting an enormous quantity of vehicles to the United Kingdom and thereby threatening our own industry, should we not be prepared to take action against them, if necessary by statute?

Mr. Miller: I thought that I had made it plain in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Benyon) that I did not favour statutory action. My first reason is that which I tried to outline about the difficulties in which the Japanese find themselves. We must have some understanding of that valuable ally with a very large population on an island with no resources. Obviously they are concerned to ensure a continuance of free trade. However, I am saying to them that the continuance of free trade will be endangered if they do not exercise prudence. The second reason is that from our point of view we must hesitate for a long time before we bring in statutory import restrictions. The point has been made that we are uniquely dependent as a trading nation on freedom of trade and have the highest proportion of GNP already accounted for by trade. I am afraid that I could not agree to my hon. Friend's suggestion at this stage.
Mention has been made of Spain. Spain is about to become a member of the EEC, and I hope that these problems will be resolved as part of that necessary negotiation. But I take comfort from the fact that in the meantime Ford has given a clear commitment to reduce its imports from Spain in the remainder of this year by half the amount that it imported from there last year. That will make a considerable difference. There is no doubt that there is discrimination against us and that it will have to be resolved on an EEC basis.
I asked at the outset for Government action which was urgent, realistic and

in the national interest. Apart from the more general questions of interest rates and exchange rates, that action should concentrate on type approval both for cars and for lorries. In fact, to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield, I would point out that it took 18 months to get type approval for the British Leyland commercial vehicle in France. We have no national type approval for cars—we rely on EEC directives—but other EEC countries have their own national approval systems as back-up, whereas we do not, and for commercial vehicles we have nothing at all.
We must face up to the need to increase the payload of commercial vehicles and to spread the load better among the axles. I can imagine the reaction to that statement from the environmental lobby, but our commercial vehicle industry is fighting with its hands tied behind its back against European imports. Not enough mention has been made of the fact that the import problem is developing just as seriously for commercial vehicles as for passenger cars.
The Government need to discuss with our European partners the elaboration of a trade strategy to deal with Japan, Spain's access and trade with the Comecon countries. I argue unashamedly that our Olympic boycott should have been coupled with some commercial sanction. The Olympics have now ended. How will our protest now be expressed against the continued Soviet occupation of Afghanistan?
I was disappointed to receive a reply from the Department of Trade when I last raised the subject reminding me gently that it was in our commercial interests to continue trade with the Eastern bloc, where we showed a visible trade balance. Such a reply is not my idea of how one protests at the action of a foreign Power.
The Government will also have to fund BL once the results of the Metro have been seen. It is impossible to continue running a company of that size on an annual financial dripfeed, as one of my hon. Friends described it.
My next point may seem a small matter, but the Minister, with his experience of industry, will be well aware of its importance. Much more of our R


and D effort should be placed in firms and directed by firms rather than by Government research establishments. I know that there have been reports on that.
The Government have made a good start on bringing about the necessary changes of attitude, but further resolute action is needed to demonstrate the Government's commitment to those working in the motor industry. I am sure that that will meet with a more than corresponding response.

Mr. William Wilson: Like the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) and Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), I have visited the Renault car factory. I confess that I went like a country cousin, thinking that I would see how a vast car industry should be run. As the other hon. Members have said, we discovered that the mechanisation and technology did not put the British industry to shame at all.
In Chrysler at Ryton, Coventry, we were able to stand up to what Renault could show. But even to my inexperienced eyes men could be seen standing around. Overmanning was there to be seen by anyone who bothered to look.
The problems of the British car industry in relation to manning, machinery and mechanisation were not answered by our visit to Renault. I confess as I look around the House that, vicariously and otherwise, I probably have greater experience of the car industry than any hon. Member present.
Growing up in Coventry with a father who worked all his working life in the car industry, I could not help but learn of the difficulties of that industry. In our family, it sometimes seemed that we talked only about two things. One was the hopes and fears of the Labour Party, and the other was what would happen to Coventry City football club at the weekend. But within those conversations ran the theme of the day-to-day work and problems of the car factories.
We need look no further than Coventry to see the warning—it is there for anybody who bothers to look—about what could happen to the British car industry. When I was a boy we talked

about motor cycles. There was the Rudge, the Humber, and the Triumph. It seemed like a stable industry in Coventry but the motor cycle industry has gone. There is no longer a motor cycle industry except for Meriden which is struggling to keep its head above water. Anybody can understand just by looking at Coventry what has happened to the motor cycle industry and what could, just as easily, happen to the car industry.
We have, of course, seen great changes in Coventry. When I was a lad there were Alvis, Singer, Morris, and Standard Triumph cars. They have disappeared altogether as names. Other names have taken their places, but it is apparent to all of us that the British car industry faces a serious situation. There is no need to look further than the boundaries of Coventry to see that. To the Minister who will reply for the Government I say that it is a time to be vigilant and to realise that what happened to the motor cycle industry can, just as easily, happen to the car industry.
Rudge motor cycles have become a name for the museum. We should be careful to ensure that Jaguar and Daimler do not likewise simply become museum names.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: This debate is everything that is good about the House of Commons. It is the model of a debate where hon. Members, self-evidently for the same reason and sharing a common problem, have come together to debate the needs and problems of their constituents in relation to the motor industry.
I was particularly impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), who opened the debate. It was factual, it was real and it was a credit in setting the scene for this debate. There is no river Jordan flowing through the Chamber with opponents on either side. We come here with a common purpose, and I believe that that purpose is the British motor industry. I believe, from the tenor of the debate, that we are all dedicated disciples to that aim.
I do not believe that there are any more enthusiastic advocates of British Leyland than the right hon. and hon. Members now in the Chamber. The Government, like their predecessors, have


taken a realistic view of the problems of BL and have given financial aid. The aid to BL amounts to about £300 million in the current year, and I am informed that £275 million has already been paid.
I am able to reflect, for personal reasons, on the identical debate that we had on this subject last year. It was most interesting that in that debate all those who spoke gave a solemn pledge that they would support the British motor industry. I am assured and confident that again tonight the Members of this House will support British Leyland.
Provisos and conditions may be attached to that support. I suggest that we should support British Leyland at a realistic and an economic price, but not at any price. The economic realities of life are being grasped by the board, the management and the employees of BL, I am sure. It is a tribute to them that we have heard repeatedly in this debate that the work force at BL has accepted a 5 per cent. increase in pay in order to create what we all want—a viable British motor industry.
What are the economic realities? What is the future? How secure are the jobs in the work force corporate? BL took £150 million of aid in April, another £75 million in May and a further £50 million in July. I share the simple view that the financial reality is that the Metro model, to be launched later this year, is the key to the future of the company. Several times during my speech I shall direct my remarks to my Front Bench to say that BL needs funding for that model. If the Metro should fail in terms of performance, reliability, availability or price, the position would pass, I believe, from being serious to critical. I am led to understand that that is the view of the board of BL.
I spent most of Saturday morning viewing the Morris Ital. To suggest that it is a Marina Mark II is most unfair. Again, this model is to play a crucial part in the survival plan of British Leyland. I am not ashamed to say that my soul wept, particularly since I was in the Principality of Wales, when I realised that the design features came from Italy. Here we have a British model that is alleged to have been remodelled in Italy.
I do not normally use such expressions as "survival plan". It is an indictment

of successive Governments, management and the company generally that we have to talk of a survival plan for one of our great, traditional industries. The new series A engine and LCIO model will require Government assistance to finance stocks from the initial launch. It is sad to discover the inability of this great British industry to supply models in prime demand, such as the Range Rover, Jaguar, Daimler and Rover. There is growing need for financial aid to introduce a replacement for or complement to the Princess range. The work force in the group has amply demonstrated a new sense of realism and is facing the cold, stark realities of survival.
Since 1977, British Leyland has lost 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom market. Ford has increased its share by the same percentage, and imports have increased by about 13 per cent., made up of 3 per cent. from Germany, 4 per cent. from France, 3 per cent. from Belgium and 3 per cent. from Spain. It is vital that the industry grasps the message that to be viable it must have a secure home-based market. I suggest that it is only on the platform of a secure home market of about 25 per cent. that it can launch into the export market, which is what we all want. In simple economics, orders equal production equal jobs equal profit equal further investment equal further jobs, as was brought out earlier by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East. Everyone on the payroll of British Leyland should be a salesman. The first ingredient of production is an order.
In my constituency and the adjoining constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), we do not make motor cars. We have never done so and are unlikely to do so. However, we have a host of small businesses that supply components to that vital industry. Naturally I am concerned about the welfare of those companies. I was surprised to learn that 400,000 people are employed in industries related to the motor industry. My constituents make components in steel, brass, plastics and rubber. The bond between all these industries was amply illustrated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). Many of the companies suffering vast redundancies are in my constituency. I have received correspondence, for example, about the problems in Fisher.


So there is a common bond bindine us together.
Another important feature that was brought out was a greater share of the market. I shall not dwell on that feature because it has been covered amply on the order situation. But I take the gravest exception to motor companies based in this country and receiving aid which import foreign vehicles. They are importing not vehicles, but unemployment, and to do that at the taxpayer's expense is outrageous.
A buoyant, healthy motor industry based in its home in the West Midlands—I am not ashamed to be selfish we all share the same view—would mean a healthy constituency with full employment, which is what we are all here to achieve in the context of the West Midlands.
The message that I give to the British motor industry is that, like other right hon. and hon. Members, I shall support its further claims. I give it a vote of confidence which I am sure is not misplaced. I still have the faith to believe that the West Midlands will accept the challenge to produce a viable, British motor industry. To that end I give my pledge this night, which I am sure will be echoed from this Chamber to the country.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for noticing me at this somewhat late hour. I ought to apologise to some of my colleagues for not having been here earlier, but I have had a fairly full day on what I think one could term other commitments.
I am delighted to speak after the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn), because he and I represent constituencies whose economic well-being reflects the health of the motor car industry. There is a developing situation of industrial degeneration in the West Midlands caused partly by the decline of the motor car industry. In Smethwick and Oldbury particularly the effects will be truly tragic in terms of the standard of living of the work people around there, of the employment prospects of young and old alike and of the blighted hopes—this is perhaps the most depressing aspect of the whole picture—of thousands

of youngsters who will enter their adult lives with their expectations of work and social fulfilment completely blighted.
The companies affected by what I can only term as industrial collapse in the Smethwick picture are a litany of some of the best known names in industry. I do not want to weary the House with the numbers of redundancies in each of those companies, but they are now reaching quite staggering proportions. Each of the names that I mention now—well-known names in British industry—are laying off in some cases hundreds, in other cases dozens, of workers who in many instances are not likely to see those activities restored again: Midland Motor Cylinders, Mansell Booth, Avery, Wilkinson Riddell & Larkin, Smethwick Drop Forgings, GKN Fasteners, Chance Brothers.
Then there is the sad saga of Dartmouth Autocastings. I believe that the programme that Birmid Qualcast has implemented of closing Dartmouth Auto-castings and Birmetals, which was discussed earlier in the House, and Midland Motor Cylinders is quite deliberate.
I have had an innuendo, if I may term it such, from a reliable source that it will not be very long before Birmid Qualcast moves its headquarters altogether from Smethwick to Derby, with an appalling effect on the life, and prospects of work, of people in my constituency. Derby—and I do not wish to attack any of my colleagues here—seems to be the heavy part of the BQ involvement in terms of foundry business, because BQ management appears to be Derby influenced in that the majority of people in the Smethwick management—I am sorry to say that this seems to be one of the factors—are ex-Derby Qualcast people.
Of course, we shall have from the Government all the usual excuses. The heartless monetarists on the Conservative Benches have conjured up a number of excuses which they reiterate on every occasion. There is a world recession, as if we did not know that. The Arab oil producers will exact a price for Western support of the State of Israel. Some of us warned of that many years ago. There is a lack of Western leadership—my God, do not we realise that?—not only in America, the great Western country, but also in this country, and, sadly, in some of the European countries.
We suffer from all of those, but the fact remains that this Government are directly responsible for three factors which are making the existing pressures much worse and the situation in the motor car industry infinitely more depressing. The first is the over-valued pound which works against exports. I am sure that some of our colleagues on the other side of the House would agree about that. Secondly, there are high interest rates, which prevent any hope of investment in improved productivity. I see nods of agreement. Great; we are making progress. This is an unusual and happy situation in the House of Commons. Thirdly, there is roaring inflation, which Government policies have stoked up. Perhaps I can have some agreement on that as well.

Mr. Pawsey: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the rate of inflation is showing a significant fall? Will he, therefore, give credit to the Prime Minister, who so ably leads this country, for her brave policies which are now working?

Mr. Faulds: This is the time of the year for young and expectant Tories to make these happy statements of support, because there may be Government reshuffles. I am sure that that bright beaver on the Conservative Benches would like to be considered in that happy band.
Of course, there has not been a marked drop in inflation. There has not been great leadership by the lady to whom the hon. Gentleman referred. If the hon. Gentleman questions my raising the issue of inflation, I remind him that he is a young Member who may not have been here at the time of the Budget. Perhaps he was rehearsing a speech elsewhere. Perhaps he was not present at that Budget. In case he has forgotten, let me remind him that it was that 15 per cent. VAT increase which largely stoked up the inflation from which the country is now suffering. Though I do not have a nod of agreement, I certainly do not have a denial.
The analysis that I have just given is one that is agreed by West Midlands businessmen across the board. I am sure that we have agreement on that as well. They are angered that the Government listen too avidly to the theoreticians, the

economists and the financial experts who conjure with figures rather than to the practical men of business, such as the industrialists and the small business men themselves who have their finger on the industrial pulse of Britain and know what is happening. They should be listened to rather more carefully than they have been listened to by this Government. They know the damage that is being inflicted on local industry, and they say quite openly that some of the damage will be permanent in the West Midlands. There will be no recovery. There will not be a sudden phoenix rising out of the ashes. There will simply be ashes in the West Midlands in a lot of those industrial setups.
The most devastating effects are on the young people as they leave the school gates for the last time. For many, more than half of them, there is no prospect of work of any sort at all. This problem is causing tremendous concern, not only among Members of Parliament who sit here for the area, but among local councillors and education staff in particular.
Following a meeting between the director of education, the Members of Parliament, some of the local councillors and trade union representatives, our local director of education, an excellent man called Mr. Brindson, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister, and I should briefly like to give one or two quotations from it. He goes through the numbers of jobs available for young people just coming on to the labour market. There are thousands of such young people and there are jobs numbered in dozens. That is the reality of the situation. In the letter, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, he says:
There are signs that companies and other organisations are withdrawing the places on Work Experience because they are having to make redundancies and/or introduce short-time working in order to keep their businesses afloat. One hundred and fifty places on WEEP
—that is, work experience on employers' premises—
have been suspended and eight cancelled in the last three months.
Towards the end of the letter he says that employers locally—and this is true—are doing their damnedest to provide opportunities. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I should pay more regard to your and my common background, and I withdraw


that remark. They are doing their very best to provide job opportunities for a lot of these young people.
Brindson says:
Employers locally are very sympathetic to the situation but are unable to help in any way and so the Careers Officers face a new challenge of maintaining morale and strengthening the motivation of young people who are becoming increasingly"—
and he has underlined the word—
despondent. Many of the young people have made determined attempts to obtain employment; have completed shoals of application forms; written several dozen letters each; been subjected to test after test without, in many cases, even a letter of non-acceptance from employers. New approaches to the total training needs of young people need to be carefully examined, bearing in mind the future changing requirements in the pattern of trade and industry. The cost of neglecting such training now will be measured in the future in retrospect when the true size of the problem becomes apparent.
The new approach that Mr. Brindson suggests must really be pursued. The last Labour Government—I do not know whether this point has been made this evening—had set themselves a 10-year period for building a programme under which every school leaver was to be given some form of training. Some of our colleagues here were not in the previous Parliament and will not remember these happy facts of our life then.
Ten years, of course, is now quite clearly too long. It is an unacceptable period to subject these young people to. But what do the Conservative Government intend to do? They have not yet pronounced on whether they support Labour's earlier target. I hope that at the end of the debate some hint will be given as to the special attack on this aspect of the problem.
The Government must really review their economic policy, which has made a bad situation in the West Midlands much, much worse, with the strict monetarist straitjacket into which they have tied themselves. They cannot allow this permanently damaging industrial decline to go on. They cannot sit back and unconcernedly watch hundreds of thousands of young people launch out on life with no job and no prospects of a job.
There are—I know a lot of them—reasonable men on the Government Benches; men who are worried about

what is happening in our industrial life in Britain. They really must make their arguments heard much more clearly and much more frequently until they get a change of view, until they have battered some better understanding of these and associated problems into the minds of the Secretary of State for Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and, not least, the Prime Minister.
These will be my last phrases, Mr. Speaker, because I can see you looking anxiously at the clock. My colleagues would like me to go on longer, but I have some regard for your wishes. Would it really not help if the reasonable and concerned Tories convinced their Cabinet that one approach to engendering a move out of this encompassing recession would be to follow the path pointed out by Brandt and his colleagues, including the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—not the closest colleague of the Prime Minister but an ex-colleague, and a man with a tremendous and impressive reputation? Those gentlemen of the Brandt Commission represent a much greater body of informed, intelligent and concerned opinion than the limited bunch of toadies who now hang around the tartar they have temporarily elevated to the Prime Ministership.
The Government really must examine the possibilities in our present industrial situation of an approach along the Brandt lines, which will not only help our industrial revival but, perhaps even more important, help industrial generation in the Third world which needs this sort of activity even more than we need it.

11 pm

Mr. Terry Davis: Our debate this evening is especially appropriate. First, it is taking place a few days after the end of the car registration year and on the day when many people in the motor industry are returning to work after their annual holiday. It is also appropriate because it is exactly a year since a similar debate took place on the Consolidated Fund and a little more than a year since the general election. Therefore, it gives us the opportunity to consider what the Government have done during the past year as far as the motor industry is concerned. Above all, this debate is appropriate because the motor industry


today faces a crisis that must be almost unprecedented.
During the past year we have seen a catastrophic fall in the car market in Britain. It is now being forecast that 200,000 fewer cars will be sold in the United Kingdom this year than in 1979, and during the first half of this year there was a fall of nearly 16 per cent. in the car market compared with the same period a year ago. Within this shrinking total the proportion of cars made in Britain is also falling. The proportion of imports is rising. It is up from 54 per cent. to 58 per cent. and it is still rising.
There is no compensation from exports for the lost sales at home. I understand that British Leyland's exports of cars are down by about a quarter.
It is a similar story for commercial vehicles. There have been smaller reductions in the sales of vans, but there has been a massive reduction of 20 per cent. in the market for lorries with an increase in imports from 21 per cent. last year to 23 per cent. this year.
The implications for the components industry can be described only as appalling. Every imported vehicle sold in Britain means not only less work for Britain's car manufacturers but less work for Lucas, GKN and Smiths Industries. There is not only the immediate lost sales of the original equipment, as it is called in the industry, but the future lost sales of the replacement parts.
Britain has always enjoyed a favourable balance of trade in components, mainly as a result of selling replacement parts for the vehicles that we have already exported. Now as we are selling fewer and fewer vehicles abroad and buying more and more imported vehicles, so the favourable balance of trade in components is disappearing. Last year our imports of components rose by 30 per cent. and our exports increased by only 10 per cent. At that rate we shall have a deficit in our trade in motor components in 1982 or 1983.
The reaction of the component manufacturers has been to campaign for an end to the exclusive nature of the franchise system. They want to be able to sell spare parts for imported vehicles. We have heard their call endorsed by the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher). We know that their

call was endorsed by the Price Commission and we gather that it has the support of the Department of Trade. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what effect he calculates such a move would have on the British motor manufacturers. It is well known in the industry that the motor manufacturers make their profits from the sale of spare parts. If we are to attack the exclusive nature of the franchise system, let us know what the potential damage will be to the British manufacturers.
The position is already bad enough for both the motor manufacturers and the component suppliers. A year ago British Leyland employed 160,000 people. Since then we have had the announcement of at least 25,000 redundancies. I disagree with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller). He said that it was a remarkable achievement of Sir Michael Edwardes that 24,000 people had been made redundant at British Leyland. For my part, I deplore the need for those redundancies. I might accept the description that they are a regrettable necessity, but I cannot accept that they are a remarkable achievement. That is the difference between the parties. I accept that the Government wish to increase productivity. However, they wish to do so by reducing the number of those employed in the motor industry. We would prefer to improve productivity by increasing the number of vehicles produced by the motor industry in general, and by British Leyland in particular.
It is not only those lost jobs. It is also lost job opportunities. I refer particularly to the lost jobs opportunities for young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) pointed to the effect of such lost opportunities on the employment prospects of school leavers.
We have had a wave of similar announcements from the component suppliers. Hundreds have been made redundant at Triplex and Wilmot Breeden, and thousands have been made redundant at GKN and Lucas.
During an intervention, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) questioned whether some job losses were due to investment and to new technology. It was not new investment that cost the jobs of the MG workers at Abingdon. It was


not new investment or new technology that cost the jobs of those who used to work at Canley. It was not new investment or new technology that cost jobs of the thousands who used to work at Castle Bromwich.
In most cases, the redundancies have been voluntary, but now whole factories are beginning to close. Even when part of the factory can be kept open, and when only some redundancies are declared, one finds that there are no longer enough volunteers. At Lucas they have asked 3,000 people to volunteer for redundancy—that is one in six of the work force—but they are now beginning to talk about having to make those redundancies compulsory.
The reasons for the dramatic decline have been analysed by both sides of the House tonight. I am in greatest sympathy with the analysis made by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman). I was also struck by the reference to British Leyland made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). As he said, British Leyland is generally regarded as being small in comparison with our international competitors, and it is getting smaller, so it stands to reason that the company is heading into even greater trouble.
In the motor industry, success breeds success. The higher the sales and the higher the production, the better the productivity, the lower the unit cost and the more competitive the vehicles become. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Wilson) described his visit to the Renault factory in France. He pointed out that the firm's advantage did not lie in new equipment. According to his observations, its advantage did not lie in better productivity. What is the secret of Renault's success? From my experience in the motor industry, I suggest that the difference is that the French motor industry has the advantage of a much closer relationship with the French Government than applies in this country. That relationship is expressed not only in terms of money but in other extremely important ways.
Several hon. Members have referred to the world-wide reduction in demand for motor vehicles. That is true, However,

it is hardly an adequate explanation of what is happening to the sales and production of British vehicle manufacturers. After all, last year there was a booming market in the United Kingdom for both cars and commercial vehicles. There was a fall in the share of the market held by British manufacturers. Similarly, in the first four months of this year not only Japan but other countries increased both their production and their sales.
The fact is that we have some special problems in this country. They have been admirably summarised by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East. First, everyone in the motor industry agrees that the high value of the pound has priced our vehicles out of the export market and made it even more attractive for foreign manufacturers to sell their vehicles in Britain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East said, during the last year, the profit on each French or German car sold in Britain has doubled. The profit on each Japanese car has quadrupled. That is not the result of anything that they have done to reduce costs but simply because of a change in the exchange rate.
Secondly, there is the inflation rate. We were told a year ago that the Government's monetary policy would reduce the level of inflation. Instead it has doubled. The costs of the British motor industry have risen with it. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) intervened to describe the small reduction in inflation as being the result of the Prime Minister's leadership. I must say that in relation to inflation the best description of the Prime Minister is that she is like the noble Duke of York—
He had ten thousand men,
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
However, we are coming down very slowly.
Thirdly, there are high interest rates. Again they are the result of Government policy. They are fuelling inflation and increasing the costs of manufacturers and also acting as an old-fashioned deflationary factor by reducing the size of the total market.
It is not only these economic factors which are responsible for the crisis in the motor industry. As the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Thompson) said, there is a deliberate decision by the


multinational manufacturers to import more and more of the vehicles which they sell in Britain. The Ford company is now the biggest importer of cars into Britain.

Mr. Cadbury: One of the main reasons for Ford being one of the biggest importers of cars into this country is the failure of the Ford company in Britain to produce the vehicles which it has the capacity to make.

Mr. Davis: I said, not that Ford was one of the biggest importers but the biggest importer. It is responsible for more than one-quarter of imported cars in Britain. Ford alone imports more cars into Britain than all the Japanese companies put together. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury) that that is simply the result of disruption. Reputable newspapers report that Ford recently had 100,000 cars in stock. We do not know whether the figures are accurate, because they are confidential to Ford. However, we do know that last year Ford imported 58,000 Fiestas into Britain. During the first six months of this year the company imported 52,000 Fiestas. It did not do that because of disruption in Britain. Nor do I believe that it is importing Cortinas as a result of disruptions to production.
Ford is importing into Britain for two reasons. First, it has an agreement with the Spanish Government which means that it must export a proportion of its production. Secondly, it has the advantage of the higher exchange rate when importing into Britain. The rise in the exchange rate means that the labour of German car workers is lower in unit cost than that of British car workers. It has nothing to do with wage increases negotiated by the British car workers but everything to do with the exchange rate. Under the Government's policies the exchange rate has risen by 13 per cent. since the general election. The Ford motor company can take advantage of internal pricing and make its profits in that way.
We are in great danger of simply accepting what Ford says about disruption of production. If it is correct, we must examine the reasons. That raises many questions, not all of them about industrial relations.
There are also hidden trade barriers. We have heard about the difficulties encountered by British manufacturers trying to sell vehicles in Japan.
What have often been forgotten in the past are the difficulties experienced in trying to sell British cars and commercial vehicles in the rest of the Common Market. Every other member of the Common Market that has a motor industry also has some unique national type approval. Before a British model can be sold in any of those countries, there is a legal requirement for the British manufacturer to go through a long procedure to obtain approval and to satisfy the authorities in those countries that the British car or commercial vehicle meets their special technical regulations. In some cases, that depends on an entirely subjective test.
Quite apart from the difficulty presented by such regulations, it can take months to obtain approval, simply as a result of bureaucratic delay. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch was right to tell the story of delays encountered by British Leyland when it wanted to sell its new truck, the Terrier, in France and the comparative ease with which the French motor industry can launch a new commercial vehicle into this country.
Each country in the Common Market is different and in each country the British manufacturer has to go through a separate procedure. I sometimes wonder that the British motor industry manages to sell as many vehicle as it does in the rest of the Common Market.
The irony is that we do not have anything like a system of national type approval. This country is wide open. It is an importer's dream.
Against the background, what are the Government doing? I am sure that the Minister will remind us, as the hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Blackburn) reminded us, that the Government have agreed to provide £300 million for British Leyland, partly for capital investment and partly to meet the cost of redundancies. That money will benefit not only British Leyland, to the extent that it is used for investment, but the manufacturers of components and all the suppliers of the motor industry.
But what else have the Government done in the past year? As far as I can see, the answer is "Nothing". The hon. Member for Northfield suggested that we should learn from the Japanese and that the British Government should work closely with the British motor industry. I agree with him, but that is exactly what the Government are not doing.
What have the Government done to bring down the exchange rate, to reduce competition from imports and to help our manufacturers to compete abroad? What representations has the Department of Industry made to the Treasury about that problem? Has the Minister even passed to the Treasury the representations that he has received from the industry?
Turning to the multinationals, what has the Department of Industry done to persuade Ford to change its policy and to export instead of importing? Has the Minister asked for a meeting with the managing director of Ford in order to discuss the problem?
What representations have the Government made to the Japanese Government about the increase in the shipments of Japanese vehicles during the past few months? What have the Government done to follow up the representations made by European manufacturers to the European Commission about the problem of the rise in Japanese imports?
What about the hidden barriers in Europe? What discussions are taking place about type approval? I realise that it is primarily the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport, but what discussions have taken place between the Ministry of Transport and the Department of Industry? Does the Under-Secretary of State for Industry know what civil servants in the Ministry of Transport are doing in Brussels while he is in Westminster expressing concern about the level of imports? In short, what is the Government's policy on type approval? Does the Minister want the system of type approval in other countries to be swept away, or would Britain benefit more by following their example and introducing a unique national type approval system in this country? Where is the balance of economic advantage for Britain?
We see no sign of the Government even thinking about these questions, let

alone answering them. The Government's policy is one of non-intervention. It is a policy of providing £300 million for British Leyland and sitting back and doing nothing—forgetting that, even though British Leyland is important, it is not the whole of the motor industry and failing to understand that it is precisely because taxpayers' money has been invested in British Leyland that the Government have a responsibility to try to create the market conditions in which both British Leyland and the rest of the British motor industry can succeed and a responsibility to do something to stem the tide of imports, not only in the interests of the motor industry, but in the interests of the country as a whole.
It is as if the Government had provided money for new fire engines and then taken the attitude that it was up to the firemen to fight the fires. What about a little fire prevention? When the fire already has a hold, is it sensible to stand aside and do nothing to stop people from putting fuel on the flames?
For the motor industry of this country, the Government's policy of "do nothing" is a disaster. For thousands of people who depend on the motor industry, the Government's attitude means unemployment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): This has been an interesting debate. Until the last two speeches, hon. Members had adopted a constructive approach that extended to both sides of the House on a number of issues.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) is always listened to with respect, but I could not help feeling, as he developed his argument, that there is always the danger, when the Whips are let loose to speak in the House, that they are looking for red meat into which to get their teeth. Some of his arguments tended to move in that direction. In a sense, he showed a little bias in terms of the companies that he selected to discuss. I shall come back to some of the questions that he raised, but I do not wish to equate his views to his past except to say that a lot of the arguments that he proposed are valid. I should like to examine them in more detail in a moment,
With the exceptions I have mentioned, the arguments have been well balanced.


It would not, perhaps, be unfair to say to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who, as he explained, has not been able to be with us, that some of his comments were part of his general purpose speech and did not quite fit in with the theme that has been developed in the debate.
The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Park), in his usual statesmanlike way, looked at the matter in the widest international perspective. That theme was picked up by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher), and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Cadbury), who demonstrated that his industrial experience is relevant to our proceedings.
The Government are well aware of the industry's difficulties. The fact that tonight's speeches have been made by hon. Members representing the West Midlands does not reflect a parochial view of the matter. A whole spectrum of views has been heard, covering all the major car manufacturing countries and much of the trading policies of the Government and previous Governments. Hon. Members have demonstrated that they are adopting a wide and international approach.
This country is not alone in facing motor industry problems. The only country that does not have similar problems is Japan. In terms of the world recession and its impact, one recognises the degree of difficulty facing a number of Western economies. The energy cost element and the degree of the usage of cars will perhaps be traced through future years by economists. Many of these key difficulties are reflected in this vital, internationally competitive manufacturing industry.
We have been speaking of an industry which is international and competitive and one in which there is a limit to the amount of subsidy that can be poured in compared with other countries. Such a route is not only self-defeating but postpones the evil day for many of the basic decisions that must be taken within such industries.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), were anxious to raise the question of the sterling rate of exchange, interest rates and inflation

itself. I shall not reiterate all the arguments. It is only right, however, to make the point that to try to rig the exchange rate—that kind of artificial activity—would be inflationary in the extreme and would fuel the problem we have been discussing.
The Government are anxious to see interest rates continue in a downward direction, but, again, premature movement would fuel inflation. The fact that inflation has begun to reach a peak and that in the next few months, partly for technical reasons, we shall see a move in that direction means that we are moving towards the winter wage negotiations with a possibility—I put it no higher than that—of an inflation rate which is continuing to move downwards.
In that situation, I hope that all hon. Members will use their influence to ensure that this argument is carried through in the wage round. I recognise and pay tribute, however, to the fact that restraint has generally been a feature of the industry and has been part of the way in which some opportunities for reversing past trends have become apparent.
Many hon. Members dealt with Imports. The Government attach the greatest importance to the continuation of voluntary restraint agreement. A number of hon. Members who have been to Japan know that this problem is well understood there. We have still to work on the problems, but, on the statistical pattern, the market share for Japanese car imports this year remains below 11 per cent.—in line with recent years.
As has been said, in the last few months, there has been a relatively high rate. The question is whether that rate, or the 11 per cent. rate itself, will be maintained. I shall pass on the thrust of the argument tonight to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who carries much of the heat and burden of the day in this matter. But I would ask hon. Members to consider a little more widely than perhaps some were prepared to do tonight the future relationship with the Japanese car industry.
In the BL-Honda tie-up, to which the Government have given their blessing, one sees the attractions of inward Japanese investment. The suggestion that up to 50 per cent. of that car will be made from British components is part of the answer to some of the component


problems raised tonight. One should beware of taking too narrow a view in this debate. This may be a way in which the balance can be reversed. While in no way selling short the argument about our difficulties in reciprocal trade and our determination to facilitate it, those wider aspects should also be borne in mind.
I am fully aware of the trading imbalance with Spain, which cannot be defended on any grounds. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), who plays such a notable part in all our debates on the motor industry, pointed out, this is one of the key issues on which we would expect further satisfaction in the context of Spanish accession to the Community.
On the question of Eastern Europe too, the Government are anxious to act wherever there is evidence of dumping, but, beside the problems that we are discussing, this is a smaller one. Import penetration of less than 2 per cent. is difficult to represent as substantial damage.
Hon. Members have asked for the reasons for the assistance given to Dunlop and how the deciison related to the Government's policy. The reason that £6·1 million has been agreed under the Industry Act is to help Dunlop rationalise and modernise some parts of its car operations. I am confident that this will play its part in improving the company's efficiency in Birmingham, and in the North-East. That fits squarely with the Prime Minister's view, expressed in the House only last week, that we are always prepared to help in the transition to higher productivity and more jobs.

Mr. Silverman: Is it not a fact that this proposition for the financing of new plant in Erdington was put forward to the previous Government and that they suggested as a condition that if they advanced this quantity of money perhaps they should have some equity in the company in compensation?

Mr. Marshall: I cannot speak for the previous Government, so I cannot confirm the basis on which the hon. Gentleman puts the argument. He will want to develop that argument on another occasion, because I dare say that he was privy to any such discussions that may have taken place at that time. All I

say is that, so far as the present Government are concerned, our interest here is in schemes which improve efficiency and which are geared effectively to higher productivity and more jobs.
One of the interesting aspects to this particular agreement—and this picks up the hon. Gentleman's point—is that the scheme was given the backing and support of the independent Industrial Development Advisory Board, to which the Government look in these matters. So, in that situation, if schemes of this kind can be found, the Government have shown their willingness to help.

Mr. Hal Miller: Do I understand from my hon. Friend's remarks that this scheme is still open to other applications meeting those criteria, and that it has not been cut off?

Mr. Marshall: As I was explaining, under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act, which are applicable to this agreement, there is no reason why applications cannot be considered. Of course, it would depend on the take-up of funds at that time; but I would not want to rule out other opportunities if they can be met within existing resources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield and others raised a very important point on the question of vans and four-wheel-drive vehicles from Japan. This is an important question to which perhaps less attention has been paid than to the normal question of car imports. I share concern about the volume of such imports. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is keeping a very close watch on this matter. But import penetration overall in commercial vehicles is much lower, at about 20 to 25 per cent. Nevertheless, this is an area which requires careful attention. Again, though, we must look at it in perspective, because Land-Rover sales in the United Kingdom continue to rise as well. I am glad to welcome that. Also. BL is investing over £200 million to double Land-Rover production. I take the point that my hon. Friend put to me. I shall take an early opportunity of passing it on.
The hon. Member for Stechford raised another general question on the subject of commercial vehicle type approval. This problem is well understood. Although it is outside my Department's area of responsibility, we have naturally been in


close consultation. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is giving urgent thought to this matter. He is fully aware of representations from the industry, as we are. Because this matter is being looked at urgently, I shall take an opportunity to reinforce the arguments that have been made and pass on to my right hon. Friend the views that have been expressed here tonight.
The hon. Member for Stechford also raised the question of the franchise system for car parts, which again falls within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs in the Department of Trade. She is well aware of the problem and has asked the Director General of Fair Trading to make a full examination. As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there is here a need to balance the interests of car manufacturers and the components industry in trying to break into replacement parts markets.
As I have said, a number of the issues raised tonight have been of a consistent kind and of a genuine nature in the problems they have brought out. Inevitably, much of the present Government's effort has been directed towards BL, the company with which, in a departmental sense, I have to concern myself. I add my tribute to those which have been expressed earlier about the progress which has been made in terms of improved industrial relations and the way in which the company has sought to move back into the market place. But, as I listened to hon. Gentlemen tonight, I could not help thinking that perhaps over many years all of us have been a bit too ready to look at some of the problems, to think of solutions and to look to the Government for help without recognising the years that the locusts have eaten.
Many Members will recall the postwar years when demand was high, when the problems then apparent were not tackled on all sides of the industry. It is easy to say that with hindsight. The right hon. and learned Member for War-ley, West (Mr. Archer) said that it was no good apportioning blame, and I agree. I raise the matter only to say that consideration of the problems of the past may guide us for the future.
One aspect of the import problem that was not brought out in the debate was that many of our own consumers—indeed,

many of our own workers in these very industries—demonstrate their preference by choosing a design from another country. That design aspect is very important.
In servicing, we must recognise that over the years, for a number of reasons, our industry has suffered in comparison with our competitors.
There is much to be done within the industry. All hon. Members know in their hearts that that is true, but in the usual late-night attempt to see what they can do to twist the Government's tail they tend to play that down.
However, I suspect that in the spirit in which the debate has been conducted these are matters on which we can make common cause. We all have at heart the future of this great industry. In my view, it must be maintained and must thrive. We have a great and pioneering tradition, and we still have a number of great successes. If in concluding I relate a few of those, it is because, despite all the problems, we should remind ourselves that there are matters that give us encouragement for the future.
For example, there is the investment of £285 million in the new Metro at Longbridge. That is a key matter, and we wish the project successes. There is also the investment in the new Road-train truck and the new assembly hall at Leyland, the plans at Solihull to double Land-Rover production, and the BL-Honda development, to which the Government have given their agreement in principle. That brings forward a new model; it does not simply introduce a stopgap.
The hon. Member for Stechford was a little unfair in singling out Ford for his criticism. It is true that as part of its European policy Ford has gone in for importing from one European country to another, but, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, with the Bridgend engine plant, which is now on stream, there will be an opportunity for all Escort engines for the whole of Europe to be supplied from this country. If one followed the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument, Ford would be forced back into a fortress-type activity, with each country insisting that the company did every little piece within its own frontiers. It is a different strategy. I have given a good example of where it works to our advantage. After all, in a four-year investment


programme, now almost complete, Ford has spent almost £1 billion.
The components industry is still producing an excellent export record—an £800 million surplus on the balance of payments last year. For example, Lucas is providing all General Motors' requirements for diesel fuel injectors.
Those are some of the success stories. It is right that they should be mentioned to balance some of the problems that hon. Members have inevitably concentrated on tonight.
I certainly am not complacent about the future of the industry or the challenge that it poses for management and work force. Questions of demarcation disputes were raised. This is a Nita] matter. Hon. Members recognise that at a time of changing technology we must do all we can to encourage and facilitate the process of change. We in the Government are determined to do our part. The task has been made a little easier and a little more rational by the debate.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY PLANNING GROUPS

Mrs. Jill Knight: There are several groups in Parliament that not only transcend party barriers but leap the gap between this House and another place. I am the chairman of one such group, the all-party Lords and Commons family and child protection group. The group receives information and complaints from parents, teachers and other interested persons covering a very wide area.
The information that we have received has led us to be greatly concerned about some of the activities of the Family Planning Association and other bodies that are funded by public money to a great degree.
I hope that it will be universally agreed that Parliament must accept its responsibility to all taxpayers to expend their money wisely and justly. The taxpayers have no alternative but to pay. It is a bitter thing to be forced to contribute money which is being used to break the law of the land and to weaken family ties and debase children.
I am sure that some of the activities of the FPA are carried out by people who are both worthy and well meaning and that sections of the FPA do a good job. I entirely agree with contraception and am all for fostering responsible attitudes to parenthood and sex. Adults run their lives as they wish, and the FPA has helped many of them. I make no complaint whatever about that.
But the FPA has moved very far from its original activities, and a large proportion of its efforts are now directed towards the young. When little children, far under the age of consent, are encouraged to go on the pill, told that ideals are outdated, given contraceptives of all kinds, and when parents are deliberately denied their right to know what is going on, and when all of this is done with public money, the time has come for the strongest complaints to be made to responsible Ministers.
A father in the West Country complained to the Family and Child Protection Group last month that at his daughter's school there had been a visit of doctors from the Brook Clinic and the FPA on a sex education day course. First, a speaker from the family life association spoke about adult relationships, about love and marriage and the dangers of illicit sex. Then a doctor from the Brook Clinic spoke on contraceptives, and all kinds of contraceptives were not only discussed but examined.
Then—and here came the real mischief—the girls were divided into groups, the teachers were not present, and the FPA workers spoke to them. The children were asked what they had already been told on this subject—the question of sex and illicit relationships. The FPA worker sneered at ideals and almost said that ideals were things that one could not possibly live up to and should not try. The father of the child who wrote to the group about the matter wrote one sentence which, I feel, is most apposite. He said:
I feel that education is about excellence and high standards and not about expedients and conformity with the short-sighted and weak.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Does not my hon. Friend agree that when such matters are to be discussed in our schools parents should have the right to know


beforehand about the type of instruction which is proposed? Does she not further agree that parents should have the absolute right to withdraw their children from such classes if they feel that it would have long term ill-effects, or any ill-effects, for that matter?

Mrs. Knight: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall, if I may, in the interests of keeping within the bounds of the debate, speak on the subject of the DHSS and the funds which it donates to these bodies, although what my hon. Friend has said is correct, within the context of schools.
My point is that these activities should not be funded by public money given by the DHSS. We have had many such cases. A 15-year-old girl in Ipswich earlier this year caught VD after some time on the pill. She had secret medical treatment at first because she was too ashamed to tell her parents, who finally found a VD clinic card in her room. Imagine the effect of that on responsible parents. The FPA had given the girl contraceptives which are no protection whatever against VD. Her doctor was not told, nor were her parents. The whole operation was funded by public money.
I know of the case of a girl of 13 who was also given contraceptives by a local family planning clinic. At that time she had not had sexual relations, but within a short time of receiving the contraceptives she had had sexual relations with 10 or 12 different boys within a fortnight. The situtation was so bad that the child could not go to school. The point that we should consider is that these children are really too young. They are not mature enough to handle the problems which this kind of behaviour brings on. The girl was in utter despair when she was placed in that predicament, though the help given to her was no doubt given with well meaning intentions. Nevertheless, it was a terrible predicament and eventually the whole family had to move because it was impossible to remain in the same house.
There are dozens of such cases, and when parents complain to the local education authority, or to the DHSS, their complaints tend to be shuffled from one desk to another and from one official to another. They feel a sense of angry frustration, particularly at the fact that their

own money is being used to do that to their children.
The Family Planning Information Service is a Government-sponsored and publicly funded body administered by the Health Education Council for which the position of director-general was recently advertised at a salary of about £20,000 a year. We are, therefore, paying people large sums of money. The Health Education Council, run by highly paid officials, has done some extremely dubious things and backed some quite disgraceful publications.
The Family Planning Information Service is also administered through the Health Education Council and the FPA. This service receives £155,000 per annum to promote birth control facilities and services. The DHSS also grants £55,000 per annum to the FPA for its regional centres, though that sum is currently under review.
Bearing in mind some at least of the things that these large sums of money are used for, the amount should be cut for the following reasons. First, we are experiencing a time of severe financial stringency and there can be no excuse for spending public money unless the cause is just and right. Secondly, it should be cut because the FPA is in part a highly lucrative business, having its own contraceptive mail order business called Family Planning and Sales Ltd. That business covenants its surplus back to the FPA, and those surplus profits are neither small nor static.
In the early 1970s there was a mere £10,000 per annum profit. The figure for 1978–79 given in the annual report of the FPA for that year was no less than £116,000. In eight years, profits increased from £10,000 to £116,000. In 1975 the FPA made arrangements with the DHSS for Family Planning Sales Ltd. to market a contraceptive wholesaling service to area health authorities taking over FPA clinics.
A Monopolies and Mergers Commission report for 1975 contained a comment from the trade that the FPA's education activities were a good means of widening the market for contraceptives. Are these the people who should be teaching children and training teachers to help other children to ask for the goods which they supply and sell?
It is totally wrong for groups with vested interests in the sale of contraceptives to give sex education, or advice, to children, and for Parliament to compound the evil by doling out scarce Government funds to bump up the profits of those groups is grave mismanagement by the DHSS.
There are other reasons why the money should be cut. First, when these items are given to children there is no protection against venereal disease. It is a terrible thing that we are giving children items paid for by Government money which can give them a nasty and dangerous disease.
There is then the question of cancer of the cervix. It is not often raised. Recently a medical report confirmed that early and frequent sexual activity was very likely to bring about this form of cancer. Are we giving an antidote to teenage pregnancy? A lot of well-meaning people believe that that is why it is right to give these items to children. Yet statistics show that the greater the availability of contraceptives to youngsters, the greater the promiscuity and the more abortions there are. What in heaven's name are we doing to our children?
Many of these children are well under the age of consent. How does Parliament view the fact that it is providing public money to break the law? We should make no mistake about it. It is illegal for a man to have sexual relations with a child under the age of consent. Yet these clinics are constantly doling out these items which must inevitably lead to the breaking of that law. I cannot think that it is right that public money should be used to flout the law in this way.
There is no doubt that the authority of the family is gravely weakened when the parents are not told and not allowed to be told that their children are receiving these items. One parent I know went to a family planning clinic to complain. The parent asked the direct question: "Have you given these things to my daughter? She is only 12 years old." She was told "It is no business of yours." That cannot be right, and without question it weakens the authority of the family. As my hon. Friend the Minister well knows, the Government are pledged to strengthen, not weaken, family life.
I end with criticisms of the FPA which have been put before my committee, all of which are important and none of which is long. One person wrote:
The FPA is no longer an association to help plan a family but rather to advocate sex at any age.
A doctor wrote:
As a doctor interested in family planning and the health of schoolchildren I valued the humanity and integrity of the FPA up to about 10 years ago when it changed its leadership and style to a brash and insensitive utilitarian publicity image. The fact that the present FPA no longer has clinical doctors or nurses in its employ means that their professional ethics are no longer a stabilising force.
That is a point on which the House should ponder. The letter continues:
The present FPA's publicity methods … not only consist of arrogant attacks on anyone who disagrees with them, but also produce misleading information for young people and a constant denigration of pregnancy as either an inconvenience or dangerous.
The mental, emotional and physical health of children is too important to be manipulated by the present FPA's educators, who appear to be using sociological theories in order to break down individuality and personal morality.
The final letter states
I think that the Department of Education should know that normal parents like me and others do not want the FPA to have anything to do with educating our children in sexual matters.
Above all, I make the following point for my hon. Friend. He has been most kind in his attention to the representations that my group and others have made to him. He is well aware of the public concern about this matter, of what is happening and of the fact that public money is being used to allow it and to encourage it to happen. I hope that he will be able to tell the House that his Department will be able to look sympathetically on these representations.

Mr. William Hamilton: This is part of a concerted attack on the principal family planning charities—the Family Planning Association and the Brook advisory centres. I can cite examples of the campaign over the past several months inside and outside the House, such as the comments of the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) on 14 May, as reported in columns 1516–19 of Hansard. There was an article by Mrs. Valerie Riches, the secretary of an organisation called the


Responsible Society, in The Daily Telegraph on 13 March. There were two articles by Ronald Butt in The Times on 14 and 28 February. In late 1979 Mrs. Victoria Gillick, who belongs to the Family and Child Protection Group, applied to the Charity Commission to have the FPA struck off the register of charities. The commission rejected the charges made.
The allegations against the charities have to some extent been listed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), who I am sure will have headlines in some newspapers tomorrow. It is significant that she has not given names, addresses or identification. It is intolerable to make general and extremely damaging charges without firm evidence. This is not the first time that the hon. Lady has been guilty of that offence.
One allegation is that the two charities are undermining sexual morality by increasing knowledge of contraception and sexuality. That is a specious charge which ignores the social changes that are far more responsible for changing attitudes to sex. The attitude of the press, BBC and television companies, the earlier maturity of youngsters, their more enlightened education and parental attitudes, shape the moral climate in which we live. The charities seek only to recognise and respond to those changes. They are in no way responsible for them.
The short-term priority of the charities is to prevent unwanted pregnancies. In the long-term they aim to teach responsibility in personal relationships and sexual behaviour. Their motives are highly respectable. They are controlled by highly respectable citizens, many of whom I know personally.
The second allegation is that the charities incite promiscuity by giving information about contraception without adjuring young people to preserve their virginity. However, the youngsters who attend the advisory clinics are already sexually active and would be sexually active regardless of whether the charities existed. It is silly and short-sighted to ignore that fact or to pretend that it will go away or be more easily resolved if these charities do not exist.
The third charge is that the charities undermine the family as an institution. What an absurdity. That is an extremely vague charge which is incapable of proof. The assertion is made and it is assumed that it is self-evident.

Mr. John G. Blackburn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a girl of 12 or 13 years of age, in the situation that we are discussing, emotionally, physically and spiritually would require the help of her parents? Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that the parents should be informed in order that they may comfort their own child?

Mr. Hamilton: Absolutely. I shall come to the relationship between a child and its parents. That relationship is not always close and intimate. Often the child does not want the parents to know. It is an extremely difficult social problem. The charities behave in a most responsible way in advising those children to talk over these matters with their parents. They do not act unilaterally.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: I am sorry, but I have much to say. I am determined to defend these charities as very desirable institutions which should be preserved and supported by the Government.
Far from these organisations destroying or undermining the family as an institution, family planning over the years has helped to improve family life by educating couples in the ways of planning and controlling the size and age structure of their families.

Mr. Pawsey: Children.

Mr. Hamilton: I am coming to the children. I shall not run away from any of the problems. It is important to attack with vehemence the charges which have been made against the charities.
The fourth charge is that family planning denies parents their rights. In fact, the opposite is true. The charities do all that they can to encourage children under age to discuss their problems with their parents. But in cases of conflict between children and their parents—and they do arise—the doctors can prescribe contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies Would the hon. Member for Edgbaston prefer a 12- or 14-year-old


not to go to a clinic and to have a pregnancy and a child at that age?

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman may make his own speech in his own way. It is important to put on record the fact that too few parents discuss sex problems with their children.
In 1978 a study made by Mr. C. Farrell, entitled "My Mother Said", published by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., showed that 7 per cent. of the boys and 17 per cent. of the girls interviewed had discussed these matters with their parents. Therefore, it is idle to presume that parents are playing their part in these matters, as they should be.
The fifth charge that is made against the charities is that they do not give proper warning of the risks of contraception and of sexual intercourse. The point to be made here is that there is no general consensus as to the extent of such risks and dangers. But the charities play their part, and do their utmost, to educate, advise and warn everyone who goes to them. But not even the most comprehensive education, the most skilful advice or the direst warnings will suppress the sexual instincts of human beings. That is a fact that we had all better face. Those instincts have been about for a long time, and they are here to stay, thank God. Whether or not the charities exist, those instincts will be satisfied and often abused. The charities do a magnificent job in eradicating or reducing as far as humanly possible the risks and dangers involved.
The sixth charge made against the charities is that the Family Planning Association exists—the hon. Lady made this point—to increase the profits of its sales company, Family Planning Sales Ltd. She quoted figures which I took down. She said that in 1978–79 it made a profit of £116,000. The fact is that the company concerned covenants all its profits to the FPA's charitable funds and contributes a good proportion of the FPA's budget—about £100,000 out of a national total of about £550,000 in 1980. There is no profit to any individual at all associated with that company.
Indeed, it is not unlike the sales companies run by many national charities.

Dr. Barnardo's runs it own companies to raise money for its own purposes. The Boy Scouts Association runs its own company selling camp equipment and all kinds of stuff associated with the Boy Scouts. That practice is in line with the Government's advice—indeed, the Government's admonition—that charities must increase their charitable funds from other sources in order to reduce their dependence on State funds. No director of Family Planning Sales Ltd. receives any salary, except its managing director, who is a retired chemist. That answers one of the other charges that the hon. Lady made.
The seventh charge was made when the application was made to the Charity Commission to suspend the registration of the Family Planning Association. The claim was that the charities are political pressure groups seeking to influence the Government's policy in family planning. Even assuming it was, the FPA is not the only organisation seeking to pressure the Government in those directions. The Roman Catholic Church is a very important pressure group that is never afraid to exercise its influence—quite legitimately, in my view—to put pressure on the Government in certain directions. Therefore, there is nothing in that. But that view, in so far as it was a credible one, was rejected by the Charity Commissioners and, I think, by the Department of Health and Social Security, too.
I turn to the work done by these charities. The FPA has a national office in London and 11 regional offices, including one each in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It operates a family planning information service for the DHSS. It is funded via the Health Education Council, and had a £150,000 budget in 1979.
The FPIS distributes a range of over 40 leaflets and other literature to health authorities, with the knowledge, I presume, of the Department, which will not allow these things to go out without carefully vetting their legality. It publishes a quarterly bulletin called "Family Planning Today", which is sent to all National Health Service family planning doctors and staff throughout Britain. It also runs a personal advice service,


answering about 100,000 postal and telephone inquiries per year, which is a fair indication of the demand there is for this kind of service.
The 11 regional offices do parallel work, and they are funded as to 50 per cent. by the DHSS, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Offices. That—subject to correction—amounts to about £69,000. As far as I know, the figure for 1979 was £69,000 to £70,000. The other 50 per cent. was from the charitable funds of the FPA.
The FPA also has its own educational unit, which provides courses throughout the country, on personal relationships and sex education, for social workers, youth workers, workers with the handicapped, teachers, health visitors and the rest. Those courses are funded wholly from the FPA's charitable funds and course fees.
The FPA also has its own medical advisory panel, serviced by a medical department, in its London office, all funded entirely from FPA charitable moneys. In fact, the FPA ran most of the 1,800 family planning clinics in the country until they were handed over to the area health authorities in the reorganisation of the National Health Service in 1974. But it still has 23 private clinics, providing mostly vasectomy services where the Health Service is unable to satisfy the demand for that service.
The FPA also runs and provides offices for the organisation called Population Concern, which is a fund-raising organisation for family planning programmes in the Third world. That is a very important service and the Minister will not underrate its importance. In 1979 it raised about £100,000 in Britain for those purposes.
I turn to the other charity under attack, the Brook advisory centres. In parenthesis, I point out that, until he became a Minister, the present Solicitor-General for Scotland—an admirable man, a very responsible citizen and a Queen's Counsel of the highest calibre—was one of the directors of the Brook organisation. He would not undertake that kind of work with an organisation which, as the hon. Lady alleges, breaks the law. It is an amazing charge to make—that a Law Officer of the Crown belonged to an organisation which the hon. Lady says is breaking the law. I do not believe it.
The Brook advisory centre runs 15 clinics for young people in several cities, and 60,000 young people a year get advice from the Brook. I do not know where the hon. Lady has gone. I suspect that she has gone to the BBC, or somewhere like that, to make her charges there.
The Brook advisory centres are 15 clinics throughout the country. They are financed by area health authorities and charitable donations. The national office in London is supported by a DHSS grant of £21,000 a year, which is less than half the organisation's budget. The rest of the budget is obtained from charitable funds.
The value of the work of the Family Planning Association and the Brook advisory clinics is widely acknowledged by many authoritative and responsible bodies—for example, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in its report "Unplanned Pregnancy" of 1972, by the 1969 article by Thomson and Illsley entitled "Family Growth in Aberdeen", reported in the Journal of Bio-Social Science, by the Scottish Standing Medical Advisory Committee in 1971 in a report entitled "The Battered Child" and by numerous other organisations and individuals. There is little doubt anywhere that the two charities are providing much-needed and much-valued services.
Repeated studies have demonstrated beyond doubt that the provision of family planning services and education associated with that planning result in enormous benefits in terms of health, social well-being, family finances, housing conditions, marital happiness and security. I do not think that there is an authoritive body anywhere that would deny those claims for these organisations. In the present climate of financial stringency, the charities fulfil needs that are unlikely in the foreseeable future to be met satisfactorily in any other way. The Government have gone out of their way to emphasise the importance of extending voluntary work in this and other areas.
The use of statistics can be dangerous and misleading, but I shall put one or two facts on the record. I think that it is a recognised fact that today large unplanned families, with consequential poverty and drudgery, are thankfully very rare. There might be some hon. Members and some


outside who disagree with that concept. However, a large part of poverty the world over, poverty and drudgery in large measure, results from unplanned and very large families. That cannot be denied by anybody other than some who have religious prejudices in another direction.
Another fact is undeniable. Births to teenage girls have dropped dramatically. I am not saying that that has happened as a direct consequence of these charities. However, they have contributed in some measure to that fact. In 1971. 51 out of every 1,000 girls aged 15 to 19 gave birth. In 1978, only seven years later, the figure was down to 30 per 1,000.
The shotgun marriages, where the girl is pregnant before she is married, have been reduced to about a quarter of the rate of 10 years ago. In addition, such charities have benefited the population. In 1969, the number of births in Britain exceeded the number of deaths by 100,000. During the past four years, the birth rate has decreased, and is now about the same as the death rate.
Charities are only one factor, but they are important and cannot be ignored. The Government wish to encourage voluntary bodies and charitable organisations to extend their fund-raising efforts. They wish to reduce the burden on the State-provided services. It would be the height of economic and social absurdity, and it would be indefensible, to treat such charities as pariahs, to be singled out for punishment because of the prejudices of a tiny and unrepresentative minority.
I hope that the Government will resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Edgbaston. This will not be the last that they hear of this issue. I suspect that Conservative Members will agree that the charities are doing noble and valuable work, which should be encouraged.

Mr. Charles Morrison: The question lying behind the debate is simple: do the Family Planning Association, the Brook advisory centres and other family planning charities encourage a lowering of moral standards, or do they simply cope with the consequences of a lower standard of sexual morality, which in turn has several causes? I have

little doubt that the charities meet the consequences of a lower standard of sexual morality.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) praised the general work of the family planning charities. The hon. Member for Fife-Central (Mr. Hamilton) was unfair to my hon. Friend in that regard. However, she then pinpointed a particular aspect of their work and said that she had serious doubts about it. She said that a large part of the activities of such organisations was directed towards the young. That is true. In a perfect world that would not be necessary. Unfortunately, as we know only too well, we do not live in such a world. It is not the family planning movement that has changed the standards of sexual morality but the other pressures that have been placed, in particular, on the young. I refer to the pressures imposed by the press, television, the media in general, and by advertising.
Contrary to the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend, I believe that family planning organisations try to deal with the problems that have arisen as a result of the pressure that is put on the young by modern forms of communication. The hon. Member for Fife, Central mentioned several of the criticisms that have been aimed at the family planning organisations. He defended such organisations against such allegations.
It is important to emphasise that the organisations encourage young people to discuss sexual matters with their parents. However, we must accept that often the ability of children—and some are not much more than children—to discuss such matters with their parents is virtually nil. I wish it were otherwise. We must accept that we are dealing with a practical problem and not an ideal situation. The family planning charities are filling a gap. If they did not exist to help cope with young people's problems, the situation would be far worse and there would be many more unwanted pregnancies.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central also referred to the allegation against the Family Planning Association that it attempts to increase the profits of its sales company to line the pockets of those involved. I remind the House that that sales company covenants all its profits to the association's charitable funds.

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend will recall that that is exactly what I said. My point was that with such large profits it was debatable whether public money should be used.

Mr. Morrison: I shall take that up later. Governments have encouraged charities to establish separate companies which can raise money to subsidise the charities. I am involved in a charity which in the last two months set up a sales company whose profits will be ploughed into the charity—a research and advisory organisation. In principle, there is nothing against that.
The Government have said that they wish voluntary organisations to raise money in that manner to be used by the charity in addition to the money provided from central Government. Of course, it would be possible for the family planning organisations to operate without Government subventions, but their work would be limited. As a result they would be much less capable of carrying out the role which society asks them to perform.
I believe that these organisations do a good job and that they fulfil an important role. On the other hand, it must be accepted that they are constantly prone to criticism because they work in a delicate and difficult area. No one can deny that, and the fact that there is occasionally a debate such as this, when the services are subject to some criticism, will emphasise to them how careful they must be. I believe that they have set a high standard and that it is their intention to maintain that standard. The money allocated to them by the Government is well spent and is put to excellent use.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I listened carefully to the debate and I am well aware of the general concern felt in the House on this subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) for raising the subject, because it is an important one and, as she said, it concerns parents and families and family stability. We all appreciate my hon. Friend's deep concern on those matters and how much she has done to help families, and we also appreciate her sincere feelings on these issues. She will know that much of my medical work was spent trying to help families and

particularly young people. I also care deeply about these matters I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's comments, some of which were serious.
The Government are pledged to support and strengthen family life. Listening to my hon. Friend, I found myself asking questions that were also posed by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison). To what extent does a family planning service contribute, for many couples, to the happiness and stability of the family? To what extent does it help them to accept parental and family responsibilities? Those are fundamental and important questions. Are the services really contributing to the integration of family life, or are they, as has been suggested, leading young people into promiscuity and abnormal behaviour?
The answer is that a family planning service gives a choice to families and enables them to decide rationally the size of the family and the timing. We know that the sensible timing and spacing of children can mean better health for both the mother and the child. It can mean a more stable family life, and it can reduce the number of perinatal deaths. Those are important positive gains.
One can also, of course, look at what happens in large families such as those referred to by the hon. Member for Fife, Central, where the mother is unable to cope, there is a break-up in the family, an inability of the parents and child to talk and a high incidence of child abuse or baby battering.
We have given great thought to whether the family planning service should continue to be funded to the extent that it has been by the Government and whether it should continue to be a free service. It is a difficult question. I remember the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) had when he was Secretary of State for Social Services and in which I took part. He decided that family planning should remain a free service and that no one should be prevented from using the service by inability to pay.
Looking at the matter afresh, we have decided that it is right to continue the family planning service as a free service,


despite the economic difficulties of the country.
I listened with great interest to the figures given by the hon. Member for Fife, Central. They are not the figures I possess. I will look into the matter carefully. I shall not go into detail about my figures, although I can supply them in a parliamentary answer if the House so wishes. Sadly, despite all the efforts that have been made, the total of illegitimate births, after falling for some years, is now rising again. The number is now 0·7 per 1,000 girls aged under 16, or about 1,400 births a year.
I am sorry also to have to tell the House that the abortion figures are rising again. I have the figures for the past 10 years. In the first six months of this year, compared with last year, abortions have increased from 73,343 to 82,624. They have increased by 10·1 per cent. in the National Health Service sector and by 14·2 per cent. in the private sector. This is a worrying trend. It is a matter of great concern. I suggest to the House that it makes the provision of adequate family planning all the more important.

Mr. Pawsey: Despite what my hon. Friend says, and despite the funds being made available, the incidence of abortion is increasing. The two matters do not match. On the one hand, funds are being ploughed in, but, on the other, there is an increase in abortion. Surely the argument is that more should be done to educate young people on the principle of general morality rather than providing artificial aids, a policy that manifestly is not working as illustrated by the incidence of abortion.

Dr. Vaughan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will know, there are many different factors. Whereas the figures have been falling in recent years, they are now showing the most alarming signs of increasing. It is a matter of great concern.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central, referred to the reduction in the number of shotgun marriages. He is right in saying that the number has gone down, although not to the extent, I suggest, that he gave. My figures show that, whereas in 1970 there were 26·6 per 1,000 women, the figure had fallen to 11·5 by 1979.

This is not the fall to a quarter, as he suggested, but it is right to say that there has been a fall.
The Government thought it right at this stage to continue a free family planning service and to continue to support reputable voluntary organisations working in this sphere. We have already heard a good deal about the amount of money that the Government have been spending on everyone's behalf. The largest contribution last year was made to the Family Planning Information Service via the Health Education Council. The amount was £155,000. This provides a telephone advice service and widely circulated information leaflets. A number of hon. Members have sent me copies of various leaflets. I should like to return to this matter, because it is important to deal with leaflets sent out today and not necessarily those sent out a few years ago.
The Government also support the regional work of the Family Planning Association. In 1979, this support amounted to just under £69,000. The Family Planning Association has asked that the amount should be increased. This year, my right hon. Friend has agreed to an increase to £120,000. There are also Family Planning Association courses for professional people, the Brook advisory centres, which receive £21,000, the Catholic Marriage Advisory Council, which gives advice on natural, if I can call it that, family planning methods, which also receives £21,000, and the National Association for the Childless, which receives £10,000. So at the moment there are direct grants of about £170,000 and indirect grants of about £200,000 a year, in addition to the overall cost of the statutory National Health Service provision.
I realise that some of this work is highly controversial and that some people sincerely feel that the very availability of contraceptive advice can cause promiscuity and the erosion of ethical values. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has been clear in her view that this is so. That is a matter of great concern to us.
I agree also with my hon. Friend that guidance is best given, and must be given wherever possible, within the family, by loving parents. Most parents gladly accept and undertake this duty. But, as


my hon. Friend will realise, there are also people, from loving families, who are best helped by someone outside the family. This is where statutory, more objective, outside-the-family advice can be of help—or through a voluntary organisation. Then, as I am acutely aware, there are those from disturbed and totally unloving backgrounds.
As the House will know, we have reviewed the guidance to health authorities on the provision of contraception for under-16s. I mention this because the concept of parental responsibility, on which my hon. Friend rightly put so much importance, was very much in my mind when considering this matter. We have set out clearly the fact that we expect doctors and other professional counsellors who advise young people always to consult the parents unless there are strong and exceptional reasons why it would not be in the young persons' interests to do so. That surely must be the approach. The parent should know, unless that would clearly not be in the interests of the child. We believe that this framework will be observed equally by agencies outside the NHS which work with young people in this way—especially those which receive Government support.

Mrs. Knight: Could the Minister enlighten the House a little more about the person who is making the decision whether the child's parents are better left out or better told? If it were to be a family doctor, who knows the family background and understands the circumstances in which the child lives, it would be perfectly acceptable that a decision should be made on that basis. But is not the Minister aware that many of the doctors in these clinics have never seen the child before, know nothing of the background, the parents or the home circumstances? How can such a person make such an assessment from just seeing the child?

Dr. Vaughan: I understand that point. We would expect this advice to be given by medical people or by professionally trained counsellors. We must have confidence that they will carry out their job in a proper professional manner. I will come back later to the subject of abuses.
We certainly believe that organisations which receive Government support will follow the Government's guidelines. The Family Planning Association was among

those which warmly welcomed the statement about turning to the parents first unless there were strong reasons against. We also believe that agencies such as the FPA share our view that information about sexual matters which is given to children and young people should not be restricted to the mechanics of sex in isolation from the emotional aspects of loving, caring and lasting relationships.
The FPA makes particular reference to this in its objectives. Thanks to the kindly help of a number of people, I have been looking at some of the literature. The most offensive literature which has been referred to has, in fact, been withdrawn. I have looked at something which many people think is a good and adequate piece of literature. I came across, for example, the following:
There is no reason at all to feel that you must have sex because you think everybody else is doing it all the time.
Further down, I read:
Sleeping around when you are young, without real feeling for your partner, could make it more difficult for you to be a happy, contented person as you grow older. With something like 50 years ahead of you, it's worth thinking about whether you really want to have sex with someone just because he or she says you must.
It goes on:
If you have any doubts, you should talk your feelings over with a sensible older person.
It then says that the most suitable people are one's parents.
Bearing in mind what a difficult subject this is to talk to people about, I should have thought that that kind of information was helpful and constructive and the sort of thing that we ought to support. For example, quite recently, when my right hon. Friend asked the Family Planning Association to cease stocking a book—not published by the association—it agreed at once. There was no argument about taking it off its bookshelves.
I assure the House that we do not dismiss the concerns expressed tonight by my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston and other hon. Members. I have asked the Department to keep a very close watch, while recognising the immense range of good work carried out, particularly by organisations such as the Family Planning Association, on what kind of advice is being given and the


way in which it is given, and to let me know of any complaints which should be examined. It must be the Government's role to ensure that public money—my hon. Friend is quite correct about this—is spent in a responsible, ethical way which will increase family stability and raise moral standards and not have the opposite effect.
If hon. Members would like to bring to my notice any practices which they think are harmful, I shall certainly look into them. Where the welfare of the young is concerned, we are very much aware of our responsibilities. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston for raising this matter tonight.

Orders of the Day — SCHOOL MEALS

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful for the fact that I have been fortunate enough to have been drawn in the raffle to speak on the important issue of school meals.
I declare my interest on two counts. First, I am a Member sponsored by the General and Municipal Workers Union, which has a massive membership at risk with cutbacks of the school meals service. Secondly, and rather personally, 50 years or so ago, as the youngest of three children of an unemployed father, I recall walking two miles from my school to another school to partake of a bowl of soup and a slice of bread, and then walking two miles back again. Hon. Members can imagine that, when one is 7 years old and has only one and a half hours in which to conduct the operation, there is not too much time to gobble down a bowl of soup and a slice of bread with a two-mile walk each side of that meal.
There is no way in which I am prepared to see the children of my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, West subjected to this miserable indignity—for that is what it was. Let this House clearly understand that that is exactly what can and may well happen again in the deindustrialised North if this despicable Government carry on with their awful inhuman policies. We can and we shall go back to the soup kitchens that I remember so well in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
The school meals service in England and Wales is rapidly being killed off by local authorities. The crisis in the service has been stimulated and provoked by legislation and the imposition of expenditure cuts on local authorities.
The Education Act 1980 removed the requirement that the local education authorities should provide a midday meal for every child who wanted one. The Government drastically reduced the number of children eligible for free school meals by confining eligibility to children from families receiving family income supplement or supplementary benefit. First the Government and then the local education authorities dramatically increased the cost of a school meal. Released from the Government-imposed obligation to provide school meals, local education authorities have made the school meals service the scapegoat for cuts in local authority expenditure.
Let us look at the history of the school meals service. Since the Education Act 1944, local education authorities have been under an obligation to provide a suitable midday meal for every pupil who wants one. Authorities were required to comply with certain nutritional standards. The Act's requirements were the culmination of a campaign dating back all of 50 years. As early as 1896 legislation enable Parliament to provide free meals from public funds for "necessitous children". I vividly remember that phrase. The eligibility requirements were tightened in 1934 to include the requirement that children must have detectable malnutrition to qualify for free or cheaper meals.
By then, fortunately, my late father was in full-time employment, and he did not lose a day's work until the day he retired 14 years later. That was after 12 years of unemployment. I say that lest anyone thinks that he was a lazy man; lazy men do not work for 14 years without losing a day's work.
By 1939, 250,000 children were getting free school meals. The Second World War and the consequent rationing provided a further reason for ensuring that all children received at least one nutritious meal each day. This desire formed the background to the eventual 1944 legislation.
Two recently published studies suggest that school meals are an effective way of


reaching those children most in need. Both studies observed the height of a sample of children, and found that free school meals went most often to the shortest children. Height in children is a good indication of nutritional status. However, additional studies have also shown that school meals often fail to meet the nutritional guidelines laid down in regulations. These studies concluded that the nutritional quality of school meals needed to be beefed up.
We should look at the present Government's approach. The Government have abandoned all responsibility for the nutritional quality of school meals. That responsibility has now been devolved to the local education authorities, as part of the Government's calculated strategy to undermine the school meals service. The first part of the strategy revolved round this year's Education Act, which allows the authorities to decide what, if any, school meals to supply. It allows them to charge whatever they like for the service provided. The exception to both those rules is that the LEAs are compelled to provide a meal for
any pupil whose parents are in receipt of supplementary benefit of family income supplement so as to ensure that such provision is made for him in the middle of the day as appears to the authority to be requisite.
Although the Act retained the duty to provide meals to poor families, the means test for eligibility for free meals was withdrawn. Over 500,000 children lost their entitlement to a free school meal at the same time—and this was at a time when it was estimated that 460,000 children entitled to free meals were not claiming them. Clearly this law had grave implications for the economics of the school meals service. So, too, did the rapid escalation in the cost of school meals at the end of the 1978–79 school year. The centrally determined price was 25p per day. By June 1980 no local education authority was charging less than 35p, and many were charging 50p.
Northumberland had already increased its charge to 55p a day. It is no coincidence that. Northumberland is the one Tory bastion in the North-East. Durham county and all the five metropolitan district councils maintain a 35p charge. Northumberland county will not last long as the final bastion of Toryism

Next year should see an end to it. The first £1 a day school meal is quite likely to be served very shortly in Lincolnshire, where a cash cafeteria system will replace the existing school meals service from January of next year.
The increased charges for school meals will undoubtedly reduce the take-up. The Tories were well aware of the inevitable outcome when they embarked upon this policy. When school meals charges were increased by 10p a day in September 1977—and the Labour Party was in office then—the take-up fell to 648,000. To help cover up the cynical destruction of the school meals service, this Government have discontinued the spring and summer census of take-up in the school meals service. Only the autumn census remains.
In October 1978, 3 million primary school pupils, including 600,000 free meal pupils, received school meals. That represented 76 per cent. of those eligible. There were 2 million secondary school pupils, including 400,000 on free meals, who received school meals. That was 54 per cent. of those eligible. In special schools, 100,000 pupils, including 34,000 on free school meals, received a meal—equal to 95 per cent. of those eligible. The narrowing of eligibility for free school meals disfranchises over 500,000 school pupils.
Price increases will have further devastated take-up. Dorset county council, God forgive it, increased its charge to 45p a day. The result is that only a quarter of pupils in schools from the under-12s now take school meals, inluding free meals. Dorset estimated a drop of 20 per cent. in demand when charges increased again at the start of the summer term. Instead, take-up plummeted to 39 per cent.
I speak with a little feeling about the stigma of the situation. The massive decline in the numbers taking school meals will leave a residue of children taking free meals. Inevitably the difficulties already experienced in preventing identification of these children as poor must increase. Such identification can cause enormous psychological damage to children. I hope that no one will run away with the idea that, because of what I have said earlier, I am psychologically damaged. I might well have been, had I been a weaker character.
Such a development is likely further to reduce the take-up of free meals among those families who most need them. Even before increases in the school meals service, the combination of the fear of stigma and ignorance of their rights deterred an estimated 460,000 children from taking free school meals. I do not apologise for repeating that figure. In Dorset, where it has been decided to discontinue the school meals service for children under 12, some form of food will be provided only for those children whose parents receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement. It will, therefore, be absolutely impossible to conceal their identity.
Local education authorities are now free not only to charge what they wish for the meals they produce but also to provide whatever amount of food of any nutritional value they please. Inevitably the LEAs have cut back on both the quantity and the nutritional content of the food they provide. "Snacketeria" and other services now abound, and the use of school meals to combat social deprivation is virtually at an end at the very time when Britain's unemployment level is inflicting hardship on increasing numbers of working people.
Three hundred thousand jobs are at stake and many of the new unemployed may well be from the school meals service. Before the onslaught of this Government, 300,000 people were employed in the service. Now every LEA is cutting back on school meals. Initially cuts were made through natural wastage, early retirement and voluntary redundancy. Cuts in hours for part-time staff were also common.
Now Dorset county council has announced the end of school meals for the under-12s despite protests from my union which organises the staff there and despite the protests of parents and school staffs. Over 700 redundancies have already been announced, and the Dorset school meals service has lost over 1,000 of its 1,500 staff since January. Moreover, the redundancies have been announced in a heartless and cavalier fashion without the proper consultation provided for under the Employment Protection Act. So anxious was Dorset county council that there should be no new term for its dinner ladies that the statutory 90-day period of consultation has been completely ignored.
Local education authorities all over the country look set to follow in Dorset's footsteps. Gloucestershire has announced up to 900 redundancies. North Yorkshire has announced that it will make 400 staff jobless. Dudley county council and Devon county council have also inflicted redundancies. But even where there have been no redundancies jobs are still being lost. Northamptonshire has cut out 301 jobs and Devon has cut the equivalent of 200 full-time jobs.
At the outset the TUC estimated that the Tory measures would take out up to 40,000 jobs and it is now clear that Tory legislation has totally undermined the school meals service. The service is being made the scapegoat for local authority expenditure cuts. All 300,000 jobs are now at stake.
I conclude by asking the House a question. Is there anything great about a Great Britain which publicly identifies each and every child in the country who suffers the deprivation caused by unemployment? That identification will be made to all and sundry but most of all to their school mates. No group is more cruel than school kids.
Surely no hon. Member can be so naive as to believe that as and when the LEAs cut out provision of staff and kitchen facilities they will make provision for supplementary benefit and FIS kids in every school. Of course hon. Members are not so naive, no matter what columnists such as Crossbencher or John Junor may say about us. None of us is as thick as to believe that.
We all know that kids on FIS and supplementary benefit will be fed communally at what the many unfortunate youngsters of my generation knew as soup kitchens.

Mr. Jim Marshall: My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) is to be congratulated on two grounds: first, on coming first in the ballot for a debate on school meals; and, secondly, on the way in which he has covered nearly all the ground. His speech makes further comment almost superfluous. I am sure that that will appeal to hon. Members from London constituencies, who are waiting to speak in the debate on London. Nevertheless, despite the way in which


my hon. Friend covered the ground, I should like to put a few further points on the record, even though hon. Members will recognise them as being not too different from points already made.
We have discussed this issue many times in the past 12 months on the Floor of the House and, at length, in Committee. The central charge that we who opposed the Education (No. 2) Bill make is that it is the Government's deliberate intention, under the guise of increasing local authority freedom, to dismantle the school meals service. That is the charge to which the Minister addressed himself on 13 February when we considered the Report stage of the Bill. It remains our charge, and evidence indicates increasingly that that is the consequence of the changes made in the schools meals service by the Act, as it now is.
One can see two factors. Higher charges for school meals are leading directly to a reduction in the level of school meals provision. Second, as a consequence of that reduction, inevitably redundancies on the scale that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West indicated have occurred, are occurring and will continue to occur, probably at an accelerating rate.
Let us consider the changes that the local education authorities have made. Fifty-eight of 102 local education authorities have increased their prices, and all report a drop in the take-up. The reduction is particularly marked in those authorities that have imposed the largest price rises. They are Bedfordshire, Cheshire, Hampshire, Humberside, Northamptonshire—where there has been a reduction in demand of at least 50 per cent.—Northumberland, mentioned by my hon. Friend, and Solihull. They have increased their prices to between 50p and 55p per day. Not surprisingly, they cannot understand the reason for the fall. To Labour Members the reason is clear; parents cannot afford to pay those prices.
Local education authority chiefs are surprised to find that the price rises have not relieved the pressure on their budgets. It is hardly surprising that that has not happened. Perhaps I may quote here a comment in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) to the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Brinton), who, perhaps not surprisingly,

is not present. I apologise for the technical jargon. My hon. Friend said:
If, there is a diminution in the marginal propensity to consume as a consequence of the rise in school meal prices how much of a loss is the county of Kent prepared to sustain on each school meal by under-charging for nutritious or even non-nutritious meals? Will the consequences not be that, even with higher charges on that scale, under the freedoms given in the Bill the cost of the schools meals service per unit to the providing county will be greater and thus defeat the hon. Gentleman's objective?"—[Official Report, 13 February 1980; Vol. 978, c. 1566.]
Even taking account of the jargon, that explains succinctly what is happening in a great many local education authorities. They are increasing the price and as a result the demand is falling. That is proved beyond a shadow of doubt by what is happening in Dorset. Following price increases, demand has dropped by 50 per cent. As a consequence, the local education authority has wisely decided to phase out school meals for primary pupils, with the exception of its statutory obligation to provide meals for those children covered by the very mean free school meal provisions of this Government. We should note that it is a cold meal.
Devon is the first county to see the logic behind the Tory Government's policy. I believe that Dorset is the first in a long line of local education authorities that will reduce, if not stop, its school meal service. Dorset demonstrates that, as the price of school meals increases, demand decreases, and that ultimately the only option is to stop the service. In those authorities where prices have not been increased, which are mainly Labour-controlled, working-class areas, such as Barnsley, Bradford, Gateshead, North and South Tyneside, Sheffield, Sunderland and Manchester, there has been no fall in demand for traditional school meals. Rapidly rising charges lead to a dramatic drop in demand and place the service in jeopardy. Those areas that have not increased prices should not be forced to maintain the service at the expense of other parts of the education service.
The Minister claims to be compassionate. Even at this stage I appeal to him and his right hon. Friend to reverse their policy on school meals and maintain the grant for 1980–81 at the level of 1979–80.


Their policy is placing an intolerable strain on many family budgets. Parents are faced with the invidious choice of deciding whether they can afford to pay for a school meal. Many are finding that they can no longer afford it. We shall not know for many years the consequences of the reduction in take-up of school meals for children's health and general well-being.
I urge the Minister and the Secretary of State to insist to the Prime Minister on a reversal of the policy. Failing that, the right hon. Gentleman should do the honourable thing and resign.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) on his good fortune am: good judgment in initiating this debate, even at this time. I am only sorry that our colleagues with other debates will have a long wait.
This is not the first time that I have sought to draw the problems of the new legislation to the attention of the House. I raised an Adjournment debate on 23 May, when I dealt with the serious problems that I believed were developing in school meal services. That was two months ago, when there was still speculation about the issue. We know what is happening. More local authorities have made their decisions. There has been a spectacular drop in demand for school meals all over the United Kingdom.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), in reply to my Adjournment debate, spoke about the benefits of the new system and the increased freedom that the Government were giving to local authorities. In his closing sentence, he said:
the school meals service has improved rather than deteriorated because of the variety that is now available".—[Official Report, 23 May 1980; Vol. 985, c. 1016.]
"Variety" is indeed the word. Apart from the children of families in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit who must have something to eat—goodness knows what—a fine old variety of alternative versions of Tory

deprivation has been made available to our children.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) summed up the effect of the Education Act 1980 with uncharacteristic brevity when, on Second Reading of the Bill, he said that local authorities would have the power, the glory, but not the money. That is what it is all about. In Scotland, £18·2 million is missing from the school catering budgets of Scottish local authorities because the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not the councils, has taken advantage of the so-called discretion which is written into this nasty piece of legislation. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that he has been able to make £.3·4 million available to privileged families who want to take advantage of the assisted places scheme. But that is another story.
Coming back to the variety of meals that the Under-Secretary said was being provided in schools as a result of the new legislation, essentially four different options are available to local authorities. We have heard about Dorset. That fine county, which gave us the Tolpuddle martyrs in 1834, is likely to give us the hungry children of 1981, because it has scrapped the school catering service altogether, except for those children of families on supplementary benefit or family income supplement—and heaven knows what they are getting. It is a pity that hon. Members representing Dorset constituencies are not present to tell us what is going on in that county. Perhaps they are ashamed of what the Tory Party is doing in that respect.
The second option is that of high rates, whereby the council covers the shortfall in the budget which has been caused by the cut in Government subsidy by increasing the rates. That is happening in the Lothian regional council, which covers the largest part of my constituency in East Lothian. The council found it necessary to increase the rates by 41 per cent., for this reason and other reasons, to maintain a reasonable standard of school meals and other services at the original price. It seems clear that the Lothian electorate is satisfied with what is going on there, because, if the results of the district elections in May are anything to go by, people are swinging to the Labour Party in no ordinary fashion.
The third option is to charge higher prices for the meals. That is happening just over the boundary from my constituency in Northumberland where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West said, 55p is being charged for a meal. That obviously causes hardship for many families, particularly those who are caught in the new poverty trap which has been created, including single-parent families and other poor families who qualified for free school meals in the past but now no longer qualify because the number of free school meals provided in the United Kingdom has been halved as a result of this nasty piece of legislation. That, combined with the higher charges, in areas where they are taking effect, is obviously leading to a lower uptake of school meals, which inevitably means that the school meals service becomes that much less efficient and is subjected to much more in the way of further constraints.
The final option available to local authorities is any of a number of combinations of all those forms of cuts—higher chargese, dearer meals or a lower standard of meals. All of those inevitably lead to a lower uptake of school meals.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland waxed eloquent on 23 May about the benefits of the cafeteria system in schools. I agreed with him. It stands to reason that in secondary schools children would benefit from having a choice of what to eat. However, on that occasion the Minister conveniently overlooked the consequences of that sort of system in primary schools. I invite the House, and the Minister in particular, to speculate on the joys of 6 year-olds taking advantage of free choice in primary school cafeterias. It stands to reason that it would be chaotic and wasteful, and the Minister knows it. It is time that he faced up to that fact.
It seems to me that the cafeteria system is an interesting new development in secondary schools. I think that the House would welcome the fact that it provides more variety for secondary schoolchildren. But I am sure that we are all worried about the additional cost that it imposes on a lot of families. In addition, we must face up to the mounting crisis in primary schools, where children are most

vulnerable to the problems of poor nutrition if they do not get proper meals.
I should like to refer at this stage to the former county of Berwickshire, which lies within my constituency. It is now within the territory of the Borders regional council. There the local authority is making the mistake of attempting to implement the Government's culinary logic, if I can call it that. There are three secondary schools in that part of my constituency where the cafeteria system seems to be functioning fairly well. Two of those school kitchens also provide a service for neighbouring primary schools. Presumably, therefore, those two are safe enough.
Besides that, I have within Berwickshire 23 primary schools which are on their own so far as the catering service is concerned. The number of children in those schools ranges right down to one school at which there are only 11 pupils. All those schools are in isolated rural communities. It stands to reason that the cafeteria system cannot work in that sort of situation. Therefore, Berwickshire is down to the one-course meal for primary children in those schools, at a cost of 35p per meal. I am sure that my hon. Friends would agree that in many cases that represents an inadequate meal at an excessive price. Once again, we must face up to the fact that the uptake of the meals has slumped seriously, particularly in the summer months.
I am concerned about the possibility that the schools meals service will not survive in any appreciable scale for the winter months, when the need will be greatest. That is because, in order to balance the books, the council has had to make several of its staff redundant. Apart from those who have been made redundant, literally all members of the school meals staff within that part of my constituency are being put on short time. It is interesting to note that the reason given on the official redundancy form is:
Changes as a result of amendments to Education Act in respect of the statutory requirements to supply school meals.
In other words, the Government are directly responsible for these redundancies.
Previously in that part of my constituency, 42 staff worked a total of 817 hours a week, at a cost to the council of


£1,416 a week, to serve 1,200 meals a day for 1,500 pupils. Come September, when the new session starts, the remaining staff will have to work 560 hours a week, at a cost of £866 a week, to serve just over 1,000 meals to the same number of children; in other words, the saving will be only £550 a week. I wonder whether it is worth it. There will be a reduction of about 900 meals a week served to the children. We can only speculate on the harm that it will do to the children in that part of my constituency.
In addition to the question of hungry children, we have to ask whether the staff will consider it worth while to carry on working under this new regime. At present, the average gross earnings of people in that part of the service are £33·71 for a 191 hour week. After the cuts, their earnings will average £20·62 for 13 hours a week worked.
That average conceals some rather extreme circumstances. For instance, in my own local primary school in the village of Hutton—I hope that my son will go there eventually if the Tories have not closed it by then—the lady who looks after the school meals is at present working 10 hours a week to earn £13·61. That is two hours a day. She has been notified that her hours are to be cut to five hours a week—one hour a day—for £7·15 gross cost to the local authority. Is it really worth anyone's while to come out of the house to do a fairly tedious and unpleasant job for an hour a day to earn only that amount of money—£1·43 a day? We are clearly asking too much of some of these ladies.
We are therefore subjecting the whole system to impossible strain, particularly in primary schools and particularly in rural primary schools, where the need is greatest. When I drive through that part of my constituency at 8 am and see schoolchildren standing at farm road ends, in all weathers, waiting for transport to school, I often wonder how many of them have had a decent meal before they left the house. I am forced to reflect on the fact that many of them, in the next school session, may not get anything more than a sandwich or a packet of crisps until their parents get back from work after 5 pm. The service will have been strangled by then because

of the cuts and because the people who run the service at present will not find it worth while working in it any longer.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I wonder whether my hon. Friend's constituency is similar to others, notably Brent, the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Education, where 4 per cent. of the infant schoolchildren, 9 per cent. of the junior schoolchildren, and 21 per cent. of the secondary schoolchildren will be going to school without any form of breakfast. They will be part of the 1½ million children in Britain under the age of 19 who leave home in the morning without breakfast.

Mr. Robertson: These are extremely alarming statistics, and they are all the more alarming where we are talking about the young primary schoolchildren who really are not in a position to fend for themselves. This illustrates the sort of position that the Government are creating. It causes great concern to all of us on the Labour Benches.
The primary school catering service is in extreme peril as a result of Government constraints which are a monstrous travesty of the word "freedom". The Government are guilty of a number of crimes, but this crime against defenceless children must be one of the worst of all.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). and Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) on their contributions. They have all been brief, and I intend to follow their example. However, they have been extremely forceful.
My hon. Friends have been assisted by having the practical illustration of the recent action of Dorset to which to refer. I intend to make reference to that example in the hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us more about the position in Dorset. It is the wish of the Opposition to expose what is happening in that county so that warnings are made available for those who might become similarly afflicted as other councils are forced to follow Dorset by dint of economic circumstances and Government cuts. Dorset has provided a disastrous example.
In a sense this is the "we told you so" debate, as I am sure the Minister will readily acknowledge. I am informed that his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already acknowledged that when the Opposition and others outside the House repeatedly warned the Government of the consequences of implementing sections 22 and 24 of the Education Act 1980 we were accurate in our warnings and that some of our worst fears have been fulfilled.
It was for reasons only of illustration and speculation that we gave instances in Committee of the consequences of a local education authority contemplating and implementing the closing down of a school meals service for some of its pupils. Even in our darkest moments during the debates in December, January and February we never envisaged that it was possible before the end of 1980 for such a thing to occur in a part of the United Kingdom.
The Government's inspiration is the social market economy as preached by the Secretary of State for Industry. It is strange that they should have such a profound misunderstanding of the market consequences of their own policy of the withdrawal of subsidies for local authorities to provide school meals at prices that parents are prepared and able to afford. They do not seem to understand their own law or economics. If the price is increased dramatically and no change is made in the quality of the goods provided in exchange for that price, or if as a consequence of increasing the price and removing other subsidies there is a possibility of a fall in the standard of provision, the result will be a significant reduction in demand for the goods that are being sold at a higher price.
We have seen reductions in demand. The reduction of 25 per cent. was quite conventional. A reduction of 30 per cent. was slightly less usual. We have seen a decline in demand of 50 per cent. among not only secondary schoolchildren, who conventionally have a lower record of uptake of school meals for a mixture of reasons than other children, but primary schoolchildren. When we argued on Second Reading, in Committee and at all other stages that the market would follow the economic law as it has been described by the Tory Party's Front Bench, and in even more dramatic terms

by Tory Back Benchers, our views were dismissed as exaggerated—a favourite word of the Under-Secretaries of State—hysterical, and as a wildly inaccurate prospect being used merely to frighten the British people.
We take no joy in making the comment that we were right. Indeed, we were erring on the side of modesty in anticipation of the consequences of the Government's Act and the accompanying cuts. It is difficult to form an overall picture. We have to rely on press reports. Some of the reports, such as those that have appeared in the education weeklies such as The Times Educational Supplement and one or two other newspapers, have been pretty thorough. However, they do not have the comprehensive resources of the Department of Education and Science.
In recent months, every inquiry that has been made into price increases and their impact on the cost of school meals has met with the blunt response that such figures are not collected.
In Committee, we emphasised that the Government were making a major alteration to a basic social provision which had been in existence since 1944. We pointed out that systematic monitoring should be continued by the Department. We so argued on two grounds. We did not argue merely for the sake of argument. We wished to discover whether the Government's reaction to the local education authorities' response to cuts would be as benign as the Government anticipated. We also thought that systematic monitoring was necessary if we were to find out the effect of cuts on the standard of service provided.
In Committee, I quoted the letter that was written on 3 November 1979 and which appeared in The Daily Telegraph. It was written by doctors, hygiene experts and other experts from Brunel university, the London School of Hygiene and the Medical Research Council. They said:
Further, there is real danger that school snacks will be based on economic tenets"—
or, as the Prime Minister would say, "teenets"—
instead of nutritional ones".
That danger quickly became a reality. Since 3 April, the date on which the Education Act came into force, nothing


has been based on nutritional or social considerations. It is true that children are in the care of local authorities, but they are ultimately in the care of the Secretary of State. Everything has been based—as the authors of the letter forecast—on "economic tenets." It represents, not only in Dorset, but in every similarly afflicted local education authority, the desertion of an elementary social obligation. Until now, every modern Government has sustained that obligation.
We did not expect the Government to understand the consequences of the Act. As a result of previous debates, we realised that the Government had miscalculated the consequences of their policy. We took advantage of the evidence made available by Mrs. Angela Rumbold. She was then a leading light on Tory education authorities. She still is a leading light, but the lamp shines slightly more inside her bushel now. As long ago as 21 September 1979 she spoke of the £200 million reduction and said that it was impracticable to reduce the service by that extent in the immediate future, for which they were budgeting. She also said that if authorities had to make savings of that magnitude, they would have no choice but to dig deeper into other areas of education spending which were already facing reductions. That could only mean reductions in the levels of basic education provision."
The Secretary of State protested then and has continued to protest that the Government's education cuts had no implications for the classroom. He implied that falling school rolls woulds cover the cuts. Cuts have fallen on meals, milk, and transport, despite some slight interference in the smooth progress of the transport provisions. They have also fallen on administration. In August 1980, we have discovered that the Secretary of State was hideously out as regards anticipated savings. Instead of saving £200 million by withdrawing school meals subsidies he has saved only £80 million. Consequently there has been a £120 million cut in other areas of education. Some of it has come from rises in school meals prices. However, the reduction in take-up of school meals and the consequent rise in the unit cost of provision has wiped out any advantage in economic terms of following that course.
We are beginning to see where the pressing need for teacher redundancies and the effect of reduction in capitation allowances come from. The Secretary of State and the Government have failed to fulfil their purpose of making reductions out of the withdrawal of subsidies on school meals. That results in cuts in the classroom, which the Secretary of State solemnly promised would not occur under the cuts programme. The situation is extraordinary. Instead of saving £200 million, we are saving £80 million. In the process the school meals service in many parts of the country has been wrecked or is in the process of demolition. At the same time, there is a reduction in classroom provision, in spite of the Government saying that such provision is their main spending priority in education.
Between September 1979, when Mrs. Rumbold was issuing her warnings, and November 1979 when I and my comrades were issuing our warnings, there was only a short time before the speech in July when the Secretary of State plaintively told the Association of County Councils that school meals on which estimates of expenditure were over 60 per cent. above the Government's assumption presented special difficulties this year—difficulties not to the Government nor to the local education authorities but to the children suffering the consequences of that hideous miscalculation, that hideous innumeracy and stupid illiteracy which the Government have shown.
The example of Dorset is before us. It moved the famous resolution at the conference of local education authorities saying that the Government should take their hands off the education windpipe of the local education authorities, which are in the frontline. They have not been known to be generous in the past. When further cuts are enforced on them, they will have to make savage and deep cuts.
Tories for several decades have made strong criticisms of the Government. The Minister should take heed of that, not only in terms of his Government's self-preservation. Conservatives who complain are speaking with the authentic accents of those whom they represent. They find that the dimension and depth of cuts on which the Government insist are utterly incompatible with the maintenance of a proper education service, let alone with the


development of an improved service in the maintained sector.
We warned that the Dorsets of the educational world would occur. The Government were so frightened that they packed off a couple of civil servants to try to pull the Dorset education authority into line. That did not work. We are left with the Government's illiteracy and innumeracy being compounded by their blindness to what is taking place.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), the Under-Secretary of State said:
Local education authorities must make every effort to ensure that pupils and parents are aware of entitlement to free school meals. We dealt with that in the Education Act 1980. We also enabled local education authorities to be free to adopt a higher level of entitlement to free school meals as part of that assessment.
The procedure for doing that escapes me because the Act reduces the entitlement to free school meals for 400,000 children.
The Under-Secretary continued:
I believe that the anonymity of youngsters receiving free school meals is well understood by head teachers, and I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said. It is of paramount importance that that aspect is observed."—[Official Report, 10 June 1980; Vol 985, c. 290.]
I wonder how that paramount importance is to be sustained in Dorset, where the clearest possible definition will be afforded to children who are in receipt of free school meals because their families are on family income supplement or supplementary benefits. They will be the only children receiving free meals.
An education spokesman in Dorset told The Times Educational Supplement on Friday:
I am sure schools will find ways of handing out free lunches with the home made variety.
The report stated that, on the whole, sandwich lunches were not normally kept in satchels in cloakrooms but were handed in to supervisors first thing in the morning to be distributed at dinner time. The official said:
Protecting anonymity has always been difficult, even in the best of circumstances; and of course there will be practical difficulties under the new system.
He was not exaggerating. In order for those children not to be identified, we shall have to see in Dorset totally indistinguishable packing, a mass-provided

service that lacks all the attributes of mass production and provision. The Under-Secretary knows that the hope that he expressed in June was an idle speculation. He is doing nothing to ensure that that hope is implemented.
Dorset's awful promise was investigated by a number of people who were trying to establish whether the local education authority was in default of its responsibilities. The Secretary of State advised those who inquired that the LEA was not acting unreasonably, because the provision of a meals service where demand had significantly dropped was unreasonably expensive and therefore the LEA had discharged its duty. The moral of that tale is that if any LEA should increase its school meal charges to a preposterous level—so high as to dissuade anybody from buying the meals—it cannot be said to be acting unreasonably, because, since the consequence of the rise in price will be a dramatic fall in the uptake and an increase in the price of providing the meal, the LEA will be exempted from challenge under section 99 of the 1944 Act or under any other legislation. What a ridiculous situation the Government have got themselves into.
I cannot believe that when the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary set their hands to sections 22 and 24 they expected to get into such an idiotic situation. They repeatedly lectured us about having faith in local education authorities and told us that the word "requisite" would be generously interpreted. We were told that LEAs would go to pains to safeguard the position of children with special meal needs. We know now that that whole idea has been demolished.
We shall have to rebuild from the ruins, and to re-establish nutritional standards and meals at a price that parents can afford and in circumstances in which children want to eat them. We shall have to build a school meals service throughout the country that meets modern needs at modern prices. The job of doing that and of meeting the needs of children and meeting our duty as representatives and as a future Government has not been eased by the Government. But the greatest damage is not to the Government's credibility but to the interests of children and parents throughout Britain.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I shall endeavour to answer many of the points that have been raised in this important debate. If I do not echo the congratulations of his hon. Friends, I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) will understand that many of us have been round this course before. Nevertheless, I do not object to the sincerity that the hon. Gentleman introduced into his arguments. There were many historical aspects to which no one in the House would wish to return. I hope that I shall be allowed to proceed with my speech in some degree of peace and quiet. At the risk of upsetting the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock), I shall try to answer some of the points that have been made.
I should like to deal first with the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). He will forgive me if I do not reply in detail to the many points that he raised about his parochial problems in Scotland. I have no doubt that the points were aired fully by him in his Adjournment debate. He may not feel satisfied with the reply, but that is no doubt always the divide between Opposition and Government. If any points arise from his speech, I shall draw them to the attention of my hon. Friend at the Scottish Office. I echo the hon. Gentleman's view about the provision of cafeteria meals in primary schools. It would strike me as crazy for any school to envisage a cafeteria system for primary school children. We would do our best to dissuade any thoughts along those lines.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty and I sat opposite each other in Committee for many months and also for several hours on the Report stage of the Education (No. 2) Bill debating this clause. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it is difficult to form an overall picture of the effects of the legislation. We must reserve our judgment. At this stage, there is a lot of speculation. Certain decisions have been taken which may not be to everyone's satisfaction, but it is far too early for any objective assessment to be made.
The Government have made clear from the time they took office the im-

portance they attach to reducing public expenditure and their determination to secure this aim. The education service could not be excused from this strategy. It will be recognised that the previous Administration acknowledged that the school meals service had become excessively expensive. The previous Administration raised the cost of school meals fairly progressively throughout the mid-1970s. Nevertheless, we wanted to ensure that, so far as possible, the quality of education provided by the schools should be safeguarded. We therefore accepted the view put forward by many local authorities that there would be considerable scope for reducing net expenditure on the school meals service if the statutory requirements could be relaxed. This would be possible by a combination of reduced production costs and more realistic charging policies.
In 1978–79, the gross cost of the service was in excess of £700 million at November 1979 prices. I am glad that the humour of the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), even at 1.52 am, has not deserted him. That, at 1979 prices, would be equal to a net expenditure of about £460 million after taking account of income from paying pupils. To put this into perspective—it is a matter to which the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West referred—spending on books, materials and educational equipment in the same year was just under £200 million. The sum of £460 million was the equivalent to the cost of employing 70,000 teachers in the same year. The charge for the school meal was then less than half of what it cost the authority to produce.
Those points were acknowledged fully by the Labour Administration. Now that the statutory requirements have been relaxed under the provisions of the Education Act 1980, it is undoubtedly true that authorities are facing the biggest policy change on the school meals service since 1945. While the legislation is taking place within the local authorities, many decisions have been taken and others will no doubt take shape. Everyone acknowledges that, when new legislation is placed on the statute book, it takes time for local authorities to decide their priorities and policies.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West will acknowledge that the


situation in 1945, was very different from that in 1980. Society and its background, and nutritional standards, were totally different. One result of freeing local authorities is that there will be considerable variation in what individual authorities do and what priority they decide to give to expenditure on school meals. There is no doubt that many authorities have made their decisions already; others will decide over the next months precisely what they want to do.
I come to the question of Dorset, which was mentioned several times, because one or two exaggerations were made. Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not understand fully what has happened here. [Laughter.] It may take me some time to make my points clear, so I would not want London Members to be under any illusion that we could start at any earlier stage on the debate in which they are interested.
The 1980 Act does not require a local education authority to provide a paid school meals service. The decision by Dorset to discontinue the service for primary pupils willing to pay is not one that I would commend to other authorities. Everybody acknowledges that. Although I acknowledge and commend Dorset's determination to reduce expenditure, I believe that all authorities, Dorset included, recognise the value of the school meals service and the importance to it of maintaining high income from paying pupils. But the task facing Dorset in reducing expenditure on the service was perhaps greater than that for other non-metropolitan authorities. That relates to the point raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West.
A number of Labour Members mentioned the free school meals service. About 30 authorities have so far decided to restrict free entitlement to pupils whose parents receive supplementary benefit or family income supplement. During the summer term about 50 authorities—more than half of all authorities in England—had made no change from the arrangements which were in operation at the end of 1979. Where authorities do restrict entitlement to free meals to those children whose parents receive supplementary benefit of FIS, financial hardship can undoubtedly result from the loss of free meals, particularly in large families. But it is open to every authority to ease this

by using the powers in the 1980 Act and by adopting suitable policies. I stand by the point that I made to the hon. Members for Bedwellty because that point—

Mr. Kinnock: That does not alter the fact that it is a disaster.

Mr. Macfarlane: —has been made clear throughout the debate that we had, both in Committee and on Report.
As for the word "stigma", which the hon. Gentleman used, it has never been possible to ensure that children receiving free school meals could not be identified. I certainly hope that headmasters and local authorities will always do their best to adopt arrangements to avoid such identification.
The most important point raised in the debate concerned nutrition. The school meals organisers care about the nutritional value of the meals that they provide for children. They still have available to them the information contained in the Department's report "Nutrition in schools", published in 1975.

Mr. Reg Race: It has been withdrawn.

Mr. Macfarlane: It has not been withdrawn. Local authorities still have that document today, and it remains relevant today, when account is taken of the updated advice from the DHSS committee on medical aspects of food policy, contained in its recent report "Recommended Daily Amounts of Food Energy and Other Nutrients".
Most authorities are continuing to provide a more or less traditional two-course meal for primary pupils. The nutritional standard of these meals will not necessarily have changed, except in regard to items not popular with the children. That is an important aspect which hon. Gentlemen must understand. While they may prefer to retain what has happened over the past 30 or 40 years in the school meals service, they must understand that great changes have occurred and that children themselves are not always taking up the food that we may have had in previous generations.

Mr. Kinnock: Come on.

Mr. Macfarlane: It is all very well the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should come on, but many points were raised


to which I should respond—although no doubt we can continue this matter at Question Time later today. Many hon. Members—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. There are too many sedentary interruptions.

Mr. Macfarlane: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) indicated that it was disgraceful that children were allowed to leave their homes in the mornings without having had a meal. Whether or not he lays blame at the door of the parents or on the school is open to conjecture; he did not say. No doubt he will give the House the benefit of his opinion from a sedentary position.
I am aware of reports that many children are being sent to school without having been given an adequate breakfast, but I do not see why local authorities should be expected to make up for this. I do not see that this is their responsibility. Certainly, to the extent that some parents may have come to rely on the school to feed their children properly on the 200 or so days in the year that schools are open, they will in future have to shoulder once more what most people would regard as proper parental responsibility. That is important.
However, having said that, my Department is aware and I am encouraged to learn that an increasing number of authorities are now providing mid-morning refreshments ranging from hot and cold drinks to light snacks. This helps to meet a need and may well generate some useful income. There remains the important statutory safeguard for children from the poorest families.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: I wonder what the hon. Gentleman would have to say about an authority such as my local education authority, which, far from providing any sort of refreshment during the day, in terms of hot and cold drinks, has refused to allow primary or junior school children to bring their own hot or cold drinks, such as milk, into the school. Does the hon. Gentleman have a view about that?

Mr. Maclarlane: I should have thought that the local authority was best able to

judge what policies it should determine. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady will make her views known to the chief education officer and the head teachers in her constituency. No doubt the pressure from parents, if they feel strongly about the matter, will also be part and parcel of the democratic processes in the hon. Lady's area.
I want to conclude on the question of charges, which the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West mentioned. Again, there were some exaggerated comments from Opposition Members. During the summer term just ended, the average charge for the school meal was less than about 40p. Out of 96 authorities in England, 41 retained the charge at 35p, the level set by the Government last February, and 26 adopted a charge of 40p. Thirteen authorities set the charge at 45p, 14 adopted 50p, and two introduced a charge of 55p. Most authorities are planning to increase their charges next term, but the average will still be less than 45p, so far as we can tell from preliminary informal inquiries. That represents a figure well below what it costs to produce the meal. Certainly that is an important aspect, because in 1978–79, the latest year for which detailed figures are available, the national average cost of the meal was about 54p of which nearly 17p was the cost of the food and 25p was the cost of staff preparing it. The retail value of the food provided is greater than local authorities pay, because they are able through bulk buying and competitive tendering to buy cheaply.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister now try to answer the central point put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock)? The Minister has emphasised that a number of local authorities still maintain the 35p charge, and that a number have increased it by only 5p. If that trend continues, it will mean that the Secretary of State will not reach his target of saving about £200 million in this financial year. Therefore, rather than taking satisfaction from the low average level of prices, will the Minister tell us how that saving of £200 million will be made if prices are not increased?

Mr. Macfarlane: I do not intend to speculate on the precise nature or effect of these particular actions over the next few months. The savings must be


made. I think that all hon. Members understand fully the economic condition of the country. The savings will be made.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I understood the Minister to say that the meal costs 54p. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his fellow Under-Secretary of State, answering a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), gave a list of the charges that authorities were making, and said:
No authority is known to be charging the full cost of providing a school meal"?—[Official Report, 13 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 314].
If, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, the cost is 54p, Northampton and Northumberland, which are charging 55p, must be charging at least 1p more than the cost of the meal. That indicates that the Department does not get its facts right. I suspect that it has given the hon. Gentleman some bad information tonight.

Mr. Macfarlane: The figure that I quoted was for 1978–79, the latest year for which detailed figures are available. I said that the national average cost of the meal was about 54p, of which nearly 17p was the cost of the food. Before that, I said that two local authorities were introducing a charge of 55p next term. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
Many points have been raised. I shall read the Official Report of the debate and answer some points in writing if the hon. Members concerned feel that they have not been fully dealt with.
The hon. Member for Bedwellty spoke of the "ruins" of the school meals service. That is an exaggeration. The service is still in existence. We attach a great deal of importance to it, as local authorities clearly do. We acknowledge that it is an important feature of daily school life. I cling to the view that I took in Committee and on Report of the Education (No. 2) Bill, that we have confidence in local authorities to continue with the provision of the service. Whatever adaptation there will be over the next few months, we still have that confidence.

Orders of the Day — LONDON (GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Douglas Jay: As the night is still very young, I call the attention of the House to the impending housing crisis in London, which has been caused by the destructive policies carried out by the Tory Greater London Council. It has been worsened by the collapse of new house building all over the country, and in particular by the utterly reckless actions of the Tory council in Wandsworth, which includes my constituency. All these practical proofs that the Tory Party no longer cares in the least about housing, if indeed it ever did, and about the thousands of wretchedly housed families in London, are combining to cut down further and further the number of council dwellings available for those most in need.
The GLC's completely irresponsible policy of handing over housing estates to the boroughs means that the only slender hope that was once available for council tenants to move from one part of London to another has almost disappeared. The Prime Minister is advising the population of Wales to move to London. My constituents cannot move from Battersea to Southwark, because it is impossible to find anywhere to move to. Indeed, the Tories on the council in Wandsworth have now devised an even more extraordinary scheme, by which most council tenants in that borough cannot even move from one ward of Wandsworth to another.
On top of this, and probably worst of all, the sale of council houses is drastically reducing the number available to let. Hardly one constituent who comes to my surgery, or writes me letters about his or her housing needs, can buy a house. For the first time in many years, I am having to tell any number of people in distressing housing conditions—for instance, old ladies of 80, living alone and in frail health—that there is no practical hope now of their being rehoused in London, as long as present Tory policies are continued.
The Tories did tell us that the sale of council houses was intended to enable the sitting council tenant to realise his alleged lifelong ambition of buying a house. The humbug of this has just


been exposed by the extraordinary action, in the last two weeks, of the Tory council in Wandsworth.
This council decided recently to sell to a private property interest the council estate known as St. John's, bordering the river in my constituency. This estate was a pioneering effort by Labour councils in the 1920s, designed to rehouse families from the worst slums of those days. Three years ago the then Labour council decided that it should be wholly modernised. The Tories then took it over two years ago. Having decided to sell the estate to a private interest, the Tory council recently discovered that about 40 families refused to move out. The Wandsworth council then decided to evict them. We can see how much sincerity there was in all this talk about selling council homes to sitting tenants. In this case a Tory council is proposing forcibly to evict council tenants from their homes and to sell the estate to a private property interest, which will no doubt sell the flats to the highest bidder.
That is not quite the end of this curious story. The Wandsworth Tories also recently discovered that the Government's Housing Bill would give security of tenure to the council tenants, which would frustrate this whole operation of selling the estate. If this Bill becomes law in the next week or two, as I understand the Government hope, according to my information the enhanced security for council tenants would operate not later than early October. I believe that that is the latest state of the Bill. Thus threatened with defeat by their own Government's legislation, Wandsworth Tory council was so determined to evict these unfortunate people, at any cost to the council's reputation for responsibility, that it rushed through council last Thursday evening, 31 July, a motion authorising it to carry out the evictions at once, before the new Bill becomes law and the tenants obtain a new security.
This seems to be positively outrageous conduct on the part of the present majority on the Wandsworth council. I urge the Secretary of State to intervene in this affair and prevent the Wandsworth council from, in this case, defying not merely all principles of responsibility and decency but the intention of Parliament and the Minister's own legislation.
I understand, and the Minister can tell me whether I am wrong, that the sale of this estate to a private interest would require the consent of the Secretary of State. I therefore repeat the request that I made in a letter which I sent to the Secretary of State last Thursday, to withhold his consent to this sale. I would have thought, if there is any sincerity left in the Government's professed concern for the security of council tenants, as set out in the Housing Bill, that the Secretary of State could prove it by disallowing this sale. I therefore ask the Secretary of State to do so. I can assure him that he would immensely relieve the anxieties of 40 families on this estate if he would do this immediately.

Mr. John Hunt: I shall be reasonably brief as I wish to allow ample time for the 19 Opposition Members who wish to take part in this debate. Some of them have been unaccountably detained at meetings elsewhere, but no doubt they will contribute to our proceedings later.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on initiating this debate. I always regard him as one of the original prophets of doom. Whether he is speaking about the Common Market or housing in Wandsworth he always seems to paint the same dreary picture and he was his usual lugubrious self tonight.
I shall not follow in the parochial matters which the right hon. Gentleman raised, but I think that the first thing that should be said is that the problems of London cannot be considered in isolation. Of course, London will benefit when the upturn in economic activity comes. We shall have to wait a little longer for it but not too long, I hope. But it would, surely, be unrealistic to expect Government assistance at present to be directed specially and specifically to the capital.
I take up two points on housing made by the right hon. Gentleman. First, there is the matter of the transfer of GLC properties to the boroughs. I think that he misunderstands the views of most tenants in greater London. Those with whom I have contact have welcomed the fact that they will not now be administered from what they regard as the remote area of


county hall but will instead have more direct, and personal, contact with their own boroughs. I think that most of them prefer that.
When the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the private sector I was sorry to note that he made no mention of the provision in the Housing Bill for shorthold tenancies. That is a provision that will be of direct help and benefit to people like teachers, nurses and students who will never be able to accumulate sufficient points to be rehoused from a council waiting list and who will, therefore, be looking to this provision to enable them to move into the accommodation for which they yearn. I believe that the Labour Party has done a great disservice to those people by threatening to repeal that provision and I hope that it will have second thoughts on the matter.
As this debate is about Government assistance to London we should range a little wider than housing, upon which the right hon. Gentleman concentrated in opening the debate. I wish to mention particularly the enterprise zones which have been proposed and which are in the process of being set up.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Government have decided not to declare part of Wandsworth as an enterprise zone.

Mr. Hunt: That leads me to something that I was about to say. I share the disappointment expressed in some quarters that only the Isle of Dogs has, as yet, been designated as an enterprise zone in London. But I am bound to comment on the ambivalent attitude of the Labour Party on this matter. On 2 May in our last debate on London, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) ludicrously equated enterprise zones with sweatshops. Now I understand that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North is complaining that there is not to be an enterprise zone in Wandsworth.

Mr. Jay: I am just stating a fact.

Mr. Hunt: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's non-committal attitude on this. I can tell him that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) is most disappointed that an enterprise zone has not been designated

for North Wandsworth. I know that he intends to press the Government to designate one there in addition to that in the Isle of Dogs.
It is interesting to see this ambivalent attitude within the Labour Party, and not just on the Labour Benches in this House. Although the Labour Party has opposed enterprise zones, a number of Labour councils appear to have been falling over themselves to make applications to the Government for zones to be designated in their areas. Of course, they want the jobs and opportunities that will come from such designation, bringing as it would exemption from development land tax, from industrial and commercial rates and from industrial development certificate requirements, 100 per cent. capital allowances on industrial and commercial buildings, and substantial relaxation of planning controls.
All this must give a tremendous boost to the development potential of these derelict and rundown areas in London and elsewhere, and will provide jobs in the very areas where unemployment is at its worst and most intractable. At least the enterprise zones are a new idea that should be tried, and I greatly regret the dog-in-the-manger attitude of Labour Members on this project.
The Government have already taken a number of measures to revive and encourage activity in London. Office development control was scrapped a year ago. The Location of Offices Bureau, the Labour Party's chosen and cherished instrument for the dispersal and loss of jobs in London, has been abolished. In addition, further Civil Service dispersal from London has now been virtually halted. All this is a useful start in helping to retain jobs in London at a time when the capital, in common with all other parts of the country, faces a growing problem of unemployment and recession. At the same time the Government are trying to soften the impact of unemployment, particularly among young people—

Mr. Jay: Really?

Mr. Hunt: Yes, and I shall spell out precisely the way in which that is being done. We are spending more on training measures, particularly for young people, than the Labour Government spent.

Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman may also like to know that his Government cancelled a skillcentre that was proposed for my constituency by the Labour Government.

Mr. Hunt: I have no knowledge of that cancellation, but over the country as a whole more money is being spent than under the previous Government. By Easter next year, for example, every one of this year's school leavers, in London and elsewhere, will have been offered a job or a training place under the youth opportunities programme. In the current year the programme is being expanded to cater for up to 260,000 entrants compared with 210,000 last year, which is an increase of 28·5 per cent. That, against a general background of public expenditure cuts, is no mean achievement on the part of the Government. It indicates their commitment to ease the problems of unemployment in areas like London. It emphasises the importance we attach to better, fuller and more comprehensive training. Incredibly, even today employers in London are still complaining about the difficulty of recruiting skilled staff. London's evening newspapers and our local newspapers are still full of advertisements of job vacancies for the right applicants. If the present employment difficulties bring home to young people and others the vital importance of obtaining better qualifications and becoming more skilled, our present troubles will produce a positive spin-off for the future.
I hope that this will prove to be a useful and constructive debate, reflecting the concern of hon. Members in all parts of the House about the problems of our capital. There are no quick or easy solutions. It is my submission that the problems of London can ultimately be tackled and solved only in the context of the revival and recovery of the economy as a whole. As soon as we have conquered inflation, that revival and recovery will be under way and will gain momentum.

Mr. Ron Leighton: It is right and proper that the House should consider the position of London. When many people think of London they think of Buckingham

Palace, Piccadilly Circus, Trafalgar Square, Soho and plush five-star hotels. However, those of us who represent London constituencies know that London has much bad housing and that in some inner London boroughs unemployment is as bad as in any region. Under the previous Tory Government we had a three-day week. For many young people under this Government there is no work. Our younger generation is coming from school to the dole queue. We are entering uncharted waters. In some multiracial areas in London there is danger of riots. As frustrations build up, the temptation for some people is to lash out at the nearest scapegoat.
In the borough of Newham the local council is wrestling with the most severe financial difficulties. In the past couple of weeks the council has been requested by the Department of the Environment to revise its expenditure and lop £3·3 million off the 1980–81 figures. There were veiled threats about what would happen if it did not do so. The figure is arbitrary. It is based on the figure for 1978–79, which was cut voluntarily by the council by £2½ million. The council budgeted this year for a contingency fund of £12½ million to cover inflation, which has soared way beyond estimates. Eleven million pounds of that sum has gone in the first three months of the financial year. The council has therefore had to draw on the £6¾ million in the capital and revenue support fund, which has been accumulating over a number of years. That fund will be exhausted by the end of the year. There will therefore be a complete stop on all future capital projects.
The council is trying to save £1 million in staff and produce a further £1 million in even higher rents, which are to increase by a further £1.50 a week. That is still not enough. The council has therefore decided to bring future housing projects to standstill, which is a scandal in an area of high housing stress. I have a constant stream of people coming to my advice bureau with housing problems. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Batterea, North (Mr. Jay), I have to tell them that there is no chance of improvement while Tory policies remain. This year is bad enough. Next year will be desperate, because there will be no fat from the capital and revenue support


fund. The maximum benefits from restriction on the recruitment of staff will have been realised. The only further savings will be in the form of drastic cuts in services. Those will fall on the weaker sections of the community—the handicapped, and so on—and will worsen the quality of life in an already deprived area.
The Government say that they have no money, but they have plenty for other things. There seems to be plenty of money for defence. The Government can spend £5 billion or £6 billion on Trident. What is the purpose? The purpose of those billions of pounds is to destroy cities in other parts of the world and to incinerate their populations. That is appalling.
I want to see a change of Government and of policy so that we may spend billions of pounds, not on destroying cities, but on building up London and the decaying inner areas of other cities in this country.

Mr. William Shelton: I suggest to the hon. Member for Newham, North-east (Mr. Leighton) that the objective of Trident is not to destroy cities in other parts of the world but to avoid Tridents, or whatever they may be, belonging to other countries destroying our cities. In other words, it is the reverse of what was suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) is not in his place. I was talking to him earlier. As the hour approached 2 o'clock, I thought that we might miss the debate, I want to comment on what he referred to in Wandsworth. My constituency lies in Lambeth alongside Wandsworth. I have seen in the local press comments about the block to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. If the facts are as reported in the press and as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, there must be some cause for concern. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that matter when he replies to the debate. I am glad that Labour Members are as keen as me that people should own their houses, whatever the circumstances.
All hon. Members must be aware of the difficulties facing urban centres not only in this country but throughout the

world. We have the famous phrase "urban centre decay". When I first entered the House 10 years ago, Lambeth had five constituencies each of 50,000 or 60,000 people. There are now four. After the next redistribution, there will be only three. I trust that I shall continue to be fortunate enough to represent one of them after the next election.
There is a flight of population from our cities and from London which must worry all who represent urban constituencies. I must agree that money, or the lack of it, has a bearing on what happens in urban centres. But I suggest that money is only part of the answer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) that as the tide comes in every ship will rise with it, but I suggest that in London money is only a small part of the answer to the problem.
I remind the House of what has happened during the past 10 years in terms of planning because of too much money. Good properties have been knocked down by bulldozers and horrors have been built in their place. I have only to drive round the Elephant and Castle to remind myself of the horrors which are perpetrated by planners when money is available. I often wonder how much better that area might have been had they not had the money to create that hideous monstrosity.
If money had been available five or 10 years ago to do the same thing to Piccadilly Circus, as was planned, we would certainly regret it now. Fortunately—hopefully—it looks as though we may get something reasonable in Piccadilly Circus. I suggest that hon. Members should look at Covent Garden, where an excellent job has been done. I suggest that they should pay a visit there if they have not already done so. That was achieved without much money. A certain amount of private money was involved, but it was done with imagination and skill.
I do not accept that scattering money over our capital city will cure its problems. However, as hon. Members have already said, the main problem that we all know—the problem that confronts us at our advice bureaux and in the letters that we receive—is housing. Housing causes more misery to my constituents than anything else. I am sure that the same applies to the constituents of other London Members. If ever a road paved


with good intentions has led to disastrous results, it has been housing legislation in the last 50 or 60 years, and every party has been guilty.
While I strongly support the Housing Bill, which returns to the Chamber tomorrow, I wish that in some respects it were bolder in helping the privately rented market. It seems to me that the use of local government as a solution to our housing problems—which Labour Members have emphasised—has been proven to have failed in the last 10 or 20 years.
We all have enormous housing queues, yet we all have more local government housing now than we had in the past.
I understand that housing is worst in Scotland, yet Scotland has the highest percentage of those living in council houses. Surely that cannot be a coincidence. Perhaps it is, but it is a jolly odd one. But Lambeth, which has 11,000 people on the waiting list, has a council that is notoriously inefficient in housing its people. There are more than 4,000 empty flats and houses owned by Lambeth council, some of which have been empty for up to four years. How can that be possible? How can one justify it?
I receive pathetic letters from constituents saying "I am in a desperate housing situation", and clearly they are. They attach a list of perhaps half-a-dozen addresses of empty council houses which they have found within a block or two of where they live. Perhaps the answer is to think laterally and to ask "Is not the way to do it through short-hold tenancies?". Again, I agree profoundly with my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne. I fear that the Labour Party has knocked the shorthold tenancy scheme on the head by saying that it will repeal it. If that is so, that is a terrible thing to have done. It should have allowed the scheme to operate for four or five years. Heaven knows, we need new ideas in respect of housing in London, because it is the main area of misery. I do not believe that local authorities or the Government are able to solve the housing problem. They may be able to do so partly, but the other part must be achieved through the privately rented market.
I was talking to the boss of a distinguished housing association which is not normally associated with Conservative policies. In other words, it has the tendency to be a rather Left-Wing organisation. He had just returned from the United States, and he told me "You know, slums in the States are very bad, for instance, in Washington". I asked whether they were any worse than those in some of our cities. He replied "No", but he added "The extraordinary thing was that there is no shortage of housing to let. Anyone can get a house at a very reasonable rent, and rents are less than they are in this country. I cannot understand it". I said "You don't think it could possibly be because they do not have such a regulated market in the private sector?". He said "No, it could have nothing to do with that at all, but nevertheless, I don't understand it".
Therefore, one day a party will be brave enough, or in power long enough—it will not be the Labour Pary, so I hope that it will be the Conservative Party—to start freeing the private market to allow private money to come back into housing. That is the way that we shall get mobiliy. That is the way in which we shall reduce some of the misery. I do not see it being done through public sector housing.

Mr. Reg Race: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how this system for defeating housing waiting lists will work with the private landlord taking precedence? Does not this mean, in very simple terms, that the rate of profit for the private landlord will have to be raised to a considerable extent to make housing a profitable investment over and above any other form of investment in the economy, either in the financial or the industrial sector? By how much will rents have to go up in order to give that profit premium to the private landlord to create the thousands of dwellings needed?

Mr. Shelton: I do not think that there is necessarily any conflict between the private sector and the council sector. I do not see why they should not work in harmony, as they do in most countries in Europe. There is no conflict between them in Scandinavia. There need be no conflict between them in this country. The hon. Gentleman has a very good point. The problem is that the private market is so strangled at the moment and


there is such a shortage of housing that if it were freed there would be unacceptably high rents asked overnight, until the market had expanded sufficiently. It would probably take five or 10 years to do so.
That is why the Conservative Government introduced in 1972 the excellent Housing Finance Act. Had that not been repealed by the Labour Government, it would by now be having the sort of effect that I very much hope to see one day. But I shall not follow that line because it is a difficult one and it is very late.
Might we not, sitting as we do for inner London constituencies, at least have common cause in certain aspects of housing which create grave problems for our constituents? Might we not have some sort of crusade among us to stop councils, because of their inefficiency, from keeping houses and flats empty? Might we not move to press for some kind of central computer so that there can be mutual exchanges taking place more freely and more quickly? Might we not in some way between us see whether we can help our constituencies with their major problem—that of housing?

Mr. Thomas Cox: The range of issues to be discussed in the debate this evening highlight yet again the need for a Minister with sole responsibility for London. This has been suggested, I know, on many occasions. We are all aware of the excuses that we hear time and time again. I do not believe that, on whichever side of the Chamber we sit, we believe those excuses. The time will come when there will be a Minister with responsibility for many issues that face us in London.
London, the capital of this country, is a hell of a mess. We who represent the inner areas especially wonder at times what is our long-term future, because we have all the problems. Solving them is never easy. With a Government such as we have now, following the kinds of policies that they have been pursuing since their election a little over a year ago, in the inner Iondon area and in many of the outer areas we are starting to become what can only be described as a desert of despair. When we run through the list of our problems—housing, employment, the environment, traffic,

transport, industry—we find that it goes on and on and on. I am sure that each and every hon. Member can bring into a debate such as this the problems that beset the areas that he represents.
I shall talk about London Transport and industry. Recent weeks must have filled many Londoners with utter confusion as they heard of the to-ings and fro-ings at County Hall on the issue of London Transport and what was wrong with it.
We all know that London Transport has lost an enormous sum. I am told that the loss is over £130 million. We know that buses and trains do not run, or do not run on time. We know that buses are out of action and that there is a shortage of staff. London Transport gives us every possible excuse for not providing the service that Londoners look to and need to have if they are to be able to find employment and travel from their homes to it.
We do not need any surveys to ascertain what is wrong with London Transport. All that the powers that be at County Hall or 55, The Broadway, need to do is to send out a few representatives to any bus stop to ask those who are waiting there what is wrong with London's bus services. They will soon be told what is wrong. It will be said that they are unreliable, too expensive and inefficiently run.
The Greater London Council is now responsible for London Transport. "Mr. London", the man who can pick gimmicks out of the sky quicker than anyone else—I refer to Sir Horace Cutler, the leader of the GLC—should be familiar with these issues. Whenever one switches on the radio or even the television one hears Sir Horace being interviewed. He speaks at great length about his knowledge of various subjects. However, it seems that all the problems of London Transport are someone else's fault and most certainly not Sir Horace's. The fault lies with the workers, the chairman or the late chairman but not with Sir Horace.
We are entitled to ask what Sir Horace has been doing. The final responsibility for London Transport rests with the GLC. The leader of the GLC should know as soon as things start to go wrong. I suggest that Sir Horace has failed the


people of London and London Transport and that the sooner he goes the better it will be for everyone who lives in London.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Sir Horace has a direct responsibility, having himself appointed the bulk of the London Transport board, including the chairman whom he has recently dismissed and the deputy chairman, who was so precious to London Transport that he had to be given a special financial relationship so that his salary was paid to a private company?

Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend raises a valid argument. However, Sir Horace says "It is not really my fault. Those in whom I believed have let me down." Those who live in London and represent it, know the gimmicks and the wriggling that Sir Horace Cutler adopts. As Members of Parliament for London constituencies, we should discuss when we will provide Londoners with the transport system that they need. At present, we drive people away from public transport and towards using other forms of transport to reach their places of employment or to travel to functions. They simply say that they cannot rely on London Transport and that it is therefore up to them to find their own means of transport.
If we allow that to happen, things will escalate and will become even worse. It is regrettable that the service loses money, but it is nothing new. Few transport systems in the world make money. However, there is a vast difference between our policy and the policies of other countries. Other countries are prepared to give generous grants to ensure that their transport systems can provide services at fares that people can, and will, pay.
In September, there will be a 12p minimum fare on buses, and a 20p minimum fare on trains. That will be the third increase in a year. The increase also means that fares will have gone up by 45 per cent. since September 1979. I am sure that no hon. Member doubts that when such increases take place, people stop using public transport. Given recent events at County Hall, no one

could suggest that Sir Horace Cutler has paid any constructive attention to this issue.
I should be interested to know whether the Government have had recent discussions with the GLC about the plight of London Transport. Are the Government satisfied with events under the leadership of Sir Horace Cutler? What steps will the Government take to ensure that there is an adequate transport system for Londoners? In particular, I hope that the Government will give some financial aid to London Transport. Unless help is given, and unless there is a dramatic change of policy, London Transport will soon grind to a halt. Those whom we represent will suffer. Anyone who disputes that should go to Whitehall in the rush hour and should look at the numbers of those waiting for buses. They should talk to some of the people. At first hand, they will hear the despair that they feel about the service that they want, but that is not, unfortunately, forthcoming. If something is not done it will be a sad day for London Transport, and for the people of London.
I should like to turn to the subject of industry and employment in London, particularly in inner London. As a Member of Parliament for a south London constituency, I have seen the position worsen year by year. No hon. Member will dispute that we have allowed too many of our basic industries to move away from London. That was a mistake. The Government's policies affect London as much as any other area. The nature of London, with its appalling housing and the rundown of the environment, makes it explosive.
It is a tragedy for anyone to be out of work. If one is young—and especially if one is black—and one lives in South London it is more than a tragedy to be out of work. Young people feel that society has let them down. Year after years at school they have been told "Study hard, take exams, try to do well and respect authority and you will get on". The only way that they get on is to get on to the dole queue.
Unemployment of a little under 2 million does not give the full facts of the inner London area. There is little industrial base. The opportunity for apprenticeships diminishes week by week in many places. The lack of training


opportunities has also been reduced drastically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has already said.
Parents now come to my advice service asking whether I am able to get their youngsters a job. They do that because they share the despair of their youngsters about not being able to get work, however much they try and want a job.
The Prime Minister and her Ministers say that inflation is the overriding issue. When comments such as those made by the Prime Minister are heard by my constituents they are regarded with utter contempt. My constituents see a Government who are not concerned with their problems.
The great anxiety of business men about Government policy is of the high interest rates which they have to pay if they want to borrow money to expand. They are also worried about the unfair competition posed by goods coming into Britain from overseas. They are worried because the Government are killing off industry so that even when things start to look up the industrial base will be so destroyed that the opportunities for industry to revitalise and offer jobs will not be there. Unless we in London start to receive Government help, the problem will get worse. Anyone who thinks that those in London, especially the young, will sit by and accept that is out of touch with the feelings of our young people.
If we hope to be able to develop a realistic industrial future for our city, it is surely common sense to spend money to create basic training and employment. The problem is particularly pressing now. Not only have we lost our industrial base, which provided an enormous number of job opportunities in the past, but the Government have imposed cuts on many of the service industries that also offer job opportunities. As a result, there is a reduction in the number of jobs and apprentices that are available.
South London is a million miles from Finchley and Surrey, East, the constituencies of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They should not just pop in for half an hour or so and say "Things are a bit rough now, but they will start to improve". They should spend time walking round areas such as South London, listening to what

the people say and seeing how depressed those areas have become, certainly in the past 15 months while this Government have been in office.
If we are to have a viable future that offers hope for our people and are not to become a city in which the overwhelming percentage of the population is elderly or retired, we must have more constructive help from the Government. Young people will not accept that they cannot get a job, but, tragically, that is what many of them are starting to feel.
It is time that the Prime Minister and her Ministers realised that the one thing that the British worker wants, wherever he lives, is constructive employment. Our workers are not layabouts or scroungers, as the Prime Minister repeatedly suggests. She is always saying that they should work harder and change their attitudes, but many hon. Members can give examples of workers showing a constructive attitude to their companies, only to find that, as a direct result of Government policies, their jobs disappear and they become redundant.
We are all aware of the number of company failures in London over the past few months. Unless the rot is stopped—and only the Government can stop it—the situation will become even more serious. The Government's policies are causing the problems.
The Miniser, as a fellow Londoner, must find that his constituency is suffering from the same sort of problems that many other parts of London are suffering from. We look to him to give us hope that the Government are aware of the problems and will give us help that will lead us to rebuild the future of this great city.

Mr. John Wheeler: It would normally be proper at this hour to say to the House that I shall be brief. I apprehend, however, that the House wishes to stay on. I should like to take up the theme of jobs and job opportunities, to which previous speakers have referred. We have a major crisis on our hands in London. That crisis is not of people looking for employment but of job vacancies. I am sure that hon. Members will find the facts I shall relate of particular interest. The Department of Employment has explained the situation.


The Manpower Services Commission, the jobcentres and the employment agencies, in a survey carried out during the month ended 12 June 1980, recorded 41,992 job vacancies in London. The survey states that about one-third of all vacancies in the economy are notified to the Department of Employment and its various agencies.
The plain truth, as many hon. Members well know, is that there are about 150,000 job vacancies in London. There are certain institutional employment opportunities. The Metropolitan Police, for example, has no fewer than 4,000 job vacancies. These are well-paid jobs with a career structure and excellent pension opportunities. There are also vacancies in the Post Office. It is difficult to get telephones installed in central London or letters delivered because of a shortage of trained engineers and postal workers to sort and deliver the mail. One could go on, industry by industry. The casual observer, reading the London evening newspapers or local newspapers, will see column after column of advertisements of job vacancies.

Mr. Race: I have also taken the trouble to bring into the House the latest figures of the Department of Employment on job vacancies. I am astonished by the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I should like him to reflect on the Department's latest figures published on 4 July which show that the seasonally adjusted total of vacancies notified to the Department in Greater London was 27,900, not the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave. There was a substantial reduction of 4,600 job vacancies between June and July. Those figures cannot be reconciled with the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. I suspect that he is reading the unemployment figures and not the vacancy figures.

Mr. Wheeler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It enables me to say, again with complete frankness, that I have information, received in a written reply, which clearly states that 41,992 vacancies were notified to the three London employment service division areas. The reply went on to list in great detail the employment office vacancies throughout the London area. I will refer to only a few. In Brixton, for example,

there were 327 job vacancies; in Hammersmith, 1,006; in the City of Westminster, 4,345. There are also vacancies for professional and skilled people. The London professional and executive office had 1,709 vacancies. The hotel and catering trades group had 3,080 vacancies.
In London, many major employers are looking for people to work for them. The real question is why these vacancies are not filled. Perhaps we should look with greater care at the character of our population to see why some young people are unemployed in some parts of London, are unwilling to take some jobs, or indeed to move, or rather to travel, relatively short distances to take up the employment opportunities which are available to them.
Some people say that fares are the cause of people not taking up job vacancies. It is true that the average fare paid on the Underground is about £1, but this is generally reflected in the wages and salary offered, particularly by employers in central London, who know that if they are to fill their vacancies they must be prepared to pay a reasonable salary.
The quality of life in London is another aspect of the problem, and one to which we as London Members will increasingly turn, not only on the Back Benches but in the Government.
Many people say that they want all aspects of the quality of life improved. That means greater provision for open spaces, for trees and shrubs, for gardens and for children's playgrounds, and more attention to the character and quality of housing erected in London. There have been many serious mistakes, and it does not do to try to put the blame on one political party, since both have made mistakes, often from the best motives.
I am sure that we are all glad that the tower block is now a thing of the past and that it will not return to plague the London skyline and to provide the kind of accommodation in which most people would prefer not to live. But might we not occasionally consider the better use of tower blocks? Might we not designate a tower block for use by young single people, who would like to work for short periods in central London to obtain job experience or particular skills and who would welcome the opportunity? Many young people have great difficulty finding


suitable accommodation. Perhaps we should try an experiment along these lines. It would be exciting and attractive to many people.
It is sad also that there should be so much objection by Labour Members to the Government's shorthold proposals, because they offer an opportunity for ordinary people to make use of their homes, to bring spare accommodation into use to enable young people, particularly, to have a home here in central London.
The quality of life is increasingly becoming a major issue for the people who live in central London. I can best illustrate that by referring the Under-Secretary to the pile of rubbish in black plastic bags outside St. Stephen's House, almost within the precincts of this House. The rubbish has been there for several weeks, and I have no doubt that it will continue to remain there. Why is this so? It is not that the city of Westminster, the local authority responsible for the refuse collection, is unable to fulfil its duty. It is simply that the law does not enable an inner city authority to exercise the powers that are necessary under the Control of Pollution Act 1974 to encourage the cafés and take-away food shops to remove this rubbish in a way that would be acceptable and is manageable.
I urge that further consideration be given to bringing into operation, perhaps within central London alone, on an experimental basis, sections 12 and 13 of the Control of Pollution Act.
This is a most serious matter. Millions of people visit central London. A few tens of thousands live in it. But it is the heart of the capital. It is the place to which tourists, from within the United Kingdom and from overseas, come. They have an expectation of cleanliness. They do not find it in our streets. This is quite disgraceful. It is an issue to which we should give greater attention if we are to enhance the quality of life in central London.
The transport system, referred to at great length by the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox), is also very important to the quality of life not only of the people who live in London but of those who work in it—the million-plus people who travel into London on a daily basis,

apart from the visitors to the capital. The task of making such a transport system work effectively is extremely complex. Even the leader of the GLC, as able and talented as he is, has considerable difficulty in controlling the price and cost of oil and petrol, which contribute to the increase in the costs of the transport undertakings in London.
It has been suggested that there should be an improved transport system. But that requires people to run it, and if one has people for such a system, one must expect to pay the appropriate wages and salaries; that costs money, and that is reflected in the fares. These things go together.
I very much hope that greater attention will be given to the passage of vehicular traffic in London. It is a matter of concern that in central London the traffic warden service has fallen from an authorised establishment of 1,800 to about 1,000. Many of the streets in central London are becoming congested. This is serious because it prevents the free passage of buses and it obstructs the commercial life of central London. It means that businesses do not function efficiently. That, too, costs money. This is also an area affecting the quality of life for the residents and the people who work in London which requires early attention.
I am glad to have had this opportunity briefly to intervene in the debate. I shall not take up the time of the House further. Others wish to contribute.

Mr. Frank Dobson: But for the initiative taken by Opposition Members, the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) would not have had any opportunity to debate London matters. While 19 Opposition Members put down their names for this debate, not one of the 50 Tory Members who represent London seats even bothered to do so. Therefore, we do not accept any criticism from the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) or anyone else on that score.

Mr. John Hunt: Will not the hon. Member at least have the grace to concede that the present Conservative Government have provided time on two separate occasions within the last 15 months for debates on London, the need


for which was pressed upon the Labour Party when in government but was never acceded to? At least the hon. Member will acknowledge that.

Mr. Dobson: That is one of the more irrelevant remarks to have been made from the Conservative Benches. The debate is on the Consolidated Fund Bill. There is always at least one such Bill, and there are frequently two, in any Session. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) has had a considerable hand in achieving such debates as we have managed to have on London issues.
The role of Conservative Members appears to be that of scavengers off the Labour Benches. I was going to say that they were snappers-up of unconsidered trifles, but having listened to them I must say that their speeches splurge forth with unconsidered trifles, particularly in relation to the employment and unemployment figures, which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Paddington. I am sure that one of my colleagues will deal with that matter.
I find myself reverting to what I said in my maiden speech, not because I was right but because I was wrong. I said:
the people I represent have much to fear from any erosion of public expenditure on housing".—[Official Report, 16 May 1979; Vol. 967, c. 269.]
That was true, but what those people face with the present Government is not the slow process of erosion, not a general, gradual decay and wearing down, but the consequences of a catastrophic attack on public expenditure on housing, which is having a dramatic effect on their housing standards and prospects. It will have an even more dramatic effect as the months go by.
In February of this year the Secretary of State for the Environment announced his housing investment programme allocations. With the sleight of hand that has become characteristic of him and his departmental Ministers, he managed to put across the message that the cut compared with the previous year was 21 per cent. That was achieved by presenting figures that did not compare like with like. Once people had had an opportunity to look in detail at the figures, it turned out that they represented a cut of no less than 38

per cent., quite contrary to what the Secretary of State and his departmental press releases said.
That was not all. The public expenditure White Paper showed that compared with the £5.3 billion expenditure on housing in 1979–80 the Government intended to achieve by 1983–84 a total expenditure of only £2.7 billion, roughly halving in real terms the expenditure on housing over the next three years. The Government did not deign to give us any indication of what sort of breakdown they intended to use in achieving that reduction—reductions in capital expenditure or a reduction in the subsidies on rents. There can be no way out of it; if the money is to be reduced by roughly half, that will be done by massive reductions in capital expenditure, massive increases in rents, or a combination of the two. The Secretary of State has stalwartly refused to provide any indication of how the reduction will be achieved, other than to give us the rather unpleasant assurance that whatever happens the reduction will be achieved. The Environment Committee, in its first Report, considered the effects of the public expenditure reductions. In paragraph 16 it said:
By comparison with rent levels in 1979–80 this"—
the Government's guesstimate of rent increases—
would represent a real increase of 16 per cent. Most of the future reductions in housing investment would occur as soon as 1981–82 and the reduction over the two years between 1979/80 and 1981/82 would be very large, at over £1,000 m.
That is quite a dramatic reduction in the amount of money being spent on housing capital. I go on to quote from paragraph 17 of the report:
Even assuming no further shift of investment resources from new building to improvement, public sector starts in England would fall from 66,356 in 1979/80 to 36,000 in 1981/82 and to under 30,000 in 1982/83 and 1983/84.
Those are not the figures just for London. Those are the figures for England and Wales. There have been years when the completion and starts figures for houses in Greater London have exceeded those figures which the Environment Committee predicts will result from the Government's reductions in capital expenditure for the country as a whole. That is a most important point which


needs to be noted by the people of London since many of them, particularly in the central area, will bear the full weight of those reductions.
I quote what the Environment Committee predicts in paragraph 20, and I emphasise that this was the unanimous view of all members of the Committee—at least all those present at the meeting when the final text was decided. It said:
The Committee considers that it is unlikely that new housing starts in the public sector in England will exceed a figure of 31,000 in 1983–84 and could be well below it in the period to 1983–84.
In his chacteristic way the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg), will no doubt come up with all sorts of variations on a theme, trying to prove that everything I have said is rubbish and that the Government's intended reductions in public expenditure on housing will not send up rents or reduce the number of houses started and completed, or in course of construction. He will also go on to say, I feel certain, that what is needed is for councils to sell houses so that they can use some of the money to build new houses to replace those sold.
I return to the all-party Environment Committee report, paragraph 23 of which says:
Your Committee estimates that an average of between five and ten houses will need to be sold in order to build one replacement and therefore the discretion given to local authorities to use 50 per cent. of capital receipts from sales for investment will be of limited effect.
It goes on, and this is particularly important for inner London boroughs:
We are also concerned that unevenly spread receipts from sales will in no way reflect the needs of different local authorities. In particular, authorities with a high proportion of flats would appear to be likely to have a relatively low number of sales.
The Committee consequently recommended that compensatory provision be made. It seems unlikely that that compensatory provision will be made, because the general drift of the Government's policies under the present Secretary of State—and I am sure encouraged by the Under-Secretary—is to penalise those authorities which will suffer most, as set out in paragraph 23 of the Environment Committee report. All those matters leave out such matters as the buying up of rundown property so that it can be improved,

and the reduction in the amount of money made available so that councils can—at the exhortation of many private tenants—buy up privately tenanted blocks to give people effective security of tenure and to make sure that homes are properly maintained and, in that way, reflect the needs of the people who live in those blocks. Again, the hon. Member for Hampstead will be familiar with the process because he knows that a significant number of his constituents have pressed Camden council to buy mansion blocks in his area to protect them from the unscrupulous landlords who infest a great deal of our private housing and private rented accommodation. That money will no longer be available, as some of the constituents of the Under-Secretary know.
The other factor left out of those calculations is the money available for improvements. There may, at least, have to be an adjustment between the amount of money available for improvements and the money available for new building. It is clear that the deliberate efforts of London local authorities to buy up run down properties, because they knew that they were the only agencies that could possibly improve them, will be thwarted by the total unwillingness of the Government to provide the funds for such improvements. That is a disgrace.
Another point that should be made is that all the calculations about future rents and the number of housing starts leave aside the question of the decline in the amount and quality of existing housing stocks. As many Opposition Members know, and as Conservative Members who are not blind will have been forced to observe, a substantial number of council estates built just after the war and in the early 1950s are now in a state of considerable decline. Large sums of money will have to be spent if those estates are to be brought up to the standard people have come to expect and which they deserve. That money for the improvement of pre-war, post-war and even recent estates which were badly designed or built will not be available.
When the Select Committee took evidence from the Secretary of State for the Environment he, apparently, did not even care about the standard of housing that would result from cash reductions. He said—and the published evidence can be


seen—that he was not concerned with updating the surveys of housing stock conditions. He said that that was a waste of time and he certainly did not intend to publish figures to enable people to compare those figures with what had happened and thus set standards. The Secretary of State, the Pontius Pilate of Henley, is in charge of the Department of the Environment and is responsible for the state of Britain's housing.
I had understood, until May 1979, that the Conservative Party supported the concept of housing associations. They certainly seemed to prefer them to local authority housing. But if one asks the housing associations how they are getting on now they say that they are getting on very badly because they are not receiving the money that they expected when they were inveigled, by both political parties, into taking on a much bigger job then they had previously done.
In my constituency there are a number of recently established housing associations and one might expect them, in a sense, to over-stretch themselves because they have limited experience of how to gear their activities. But there is also an old-established and reputable housing association, namely the St. Pancras housing association, which has been around as long as any hon. Member present tonight has been alive.
That association is in financial difficulties because of the changes which have been brought about by Government policy. It is also going into decline and finding things extremely difficult.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton), who was so expert about the future of Covent Garden—half of which I represent—spoke about the contribution of the private sector. I feel obliged to turn again to what the all-party Select Committee on the Environment said about the contribution of the private sector. A number of hon. Members who are familiar with London's housing circumstances served on that Committee.
I quote from paragraph 30:
They suggest that new legislation on private renting is unlikely to lead to any large net gain to the available housing stock. Your Committee concludes that the additional output from the private housing sector will at most make only a small contribution to offset the reduction in public sector investment within the period under review.

At the end of the next paragraph it reads
By the mid-nineteen eighties there will be a cumulative shortfall of new construction, compared with the green paper forecasts, approaching half a million dwellings.
That is the sort of massive contribution that we shall get from the public and private sectors combined as a result of the Government's policies.
I believe that those policies will have their most acuute impact on central London. They will certainly have an acute impact on the area that I do my best to represent. I know that there are council estates, built before and after the war, which are now run down. They need a lot of money spent on them. The money is not there, however. I know that there are slum blocks bought from villains like Mr. William Stern, the man who managed to go personally bankrupt for the largest sum of money in personal bankruptcy in British history. He used to run slum property in the area I represent. He managed to go bankrupt on the rents that he screwed out of many of my constituents. All that property needs a massive injection of capital if it is to provide decent housing. That is being held up by the Government's policies.
I shall quote two cases. One is of someone who has been to my advice service three times. She moved out of the dwelling she occupied at the request of the council because the council was to improve it. The council ran into difficulties with the DOE about the design and cost of the rehabilitation. She wants to move back in when the rehabilitation has been completed. She has been to-ing and fro-ing for a long time. I do not suggest that the council is wholly blameless in the delays which have occurred in that case. Certainly, however, the DOE has made the major contribution to the difficulties by crawling over the details, objecting and jibbing at various stages to the proposals.
This lady told me of what I regard as the ultimate humbug when she appeared at my advice service last Friday and showed me a letter from 10 Downing Street—presumably sent on the Prime Minister's behalf—telling her that the DOE has now cleared the design and that no doubt the Camden council would be able to proceed with the rehabilitation, and would no doubt give it priority. That


presumably was on the advice of the Department which knows full well that the council has already committed its entire housing improvement programme allocation to contracts to which it is firmly committed. It will certainly be in no position to enter into any little contracts to oblige 10 Downing Street. That letter represented a fair degree of humbug.
Another case bothers me even more. It concerns one of my neighbours whom I know reasonably well. Her husband had his foot and part of his leg amputated not long ago because of thrombosis. It was the intention of the Camden council to provide them with a ground floor flat instead of the third floor walkup flat that they have at present. A man with only one foot cannot walk up three floors. The couple do not want to move from the area with which they are familiar. They have a little shop. They are the small traders that the Government are supposed to be looking after. The council said that it would do up a ground floor flat just round the corner, so that the man could get about in a chair or on sticks. The reduction in money available to the council has meant that it cannot do up even that flat. All its funds are committed, as the DOE knows.
That is a small example of the human tragedy which is doubling and trebling in London and which will continue to do so as a result of the Government's amazing housing policies. Those policies are wholly heartless and were arrived at without consideration of the consequences, simply because the DOE decided that it would contribute at a certain level to the so-called reduction in public expenditure.
These services are vital to people in London, particularly in inner London. They are being cut at a time when the Government are indulging in preposterous expenditure by their commitment to the Trident missile and other lunatic prestige prospects, which are of no benefit and possibly of great danger.
It would be false to say that I hope that the Government will take notice of the housing problems of inner London. I am convinced that they will not, at least until a month or two before the next general election. I do not expect a sympathetic

response to the problems of inner London and the problems of people in council housing or whose future depends on it. The major contribution of the Under-Secretary of State has been to try to persuade his right hon. Friend not to prevent the Jubilee hall at Covent Garden from being demolished. I am glad for once that the Tarzan from Henley prevailed.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) eloquently identified the problems. He also argued that London is short of debating time. The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said that the Government had given us two days, and we are grateful for the two Fridays. However, London is once again having to debate its affairs at 3.45 am. The first debate today was on the West Midlands, which only two or three weeks ago had a half-day debate. On Wednesday we are to debate the Eastbourne Harbour Bill. Important though that Bill may be, we have 92 London Members who wish to discuss London problems, and it is ironic that we have to do so at this odd time in the morning.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) pointed out, we still do not have a Minister representing London. Until we have such an appointment, London's affairs will not be taken as seriously as they ought to be. There is an anti-London syndrome in Governments and in all parts of the House. It is sad that we have to fight not only to stress the facts but to persuade some of our provincial colleagues that they are jaundiced in their views.
There is a continuing decline in industry and jobs in London. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) and the contretemps on the different figures. I think that that contretemps will go on because we do not seem to be able to agree the figures for London. The GLC's figures do not match the Department of Employment's figures. There is a mismatch on the apparent vacancies available, yet we have this high level of unemployment in inner London. It is a cause for concern that we do not seem to be able to discover the reason.
Only yesterday I was with one Minister who came to my constituency to discuss industry and employment. We also had the benefit of the advice of his two principal officials in my area. Their view was that there were fewer vacancies, although the one bright spot in that misery was that more places had been taken up. In other words, although there were fewer places on offer, a greater number had been placed, as it were, during the past month. That did not answer the question why there appears to be this mismatch, but we all have our various views.
One of the principal problems has been the lack of training over the years. I represent a furniture trade union. Many cabinet makers, upholsterers and French polishers are now working for the Post Office. If the Post Office were to start making furniture at Mount Pleasant, it would make a profit because there are so many ex-furniture makers working there. It is a ludicrous situation, because the furniture trade industrial training board is trying to get people to become cabinet makers and upholsterers. There is something wrong with the matching of jobs and skills.
However, that should not blind us to the fact that London has had a severe beating during the past 20 years because an enormous amount of industry has been taken away. It was redistributed because it was believed to be right. Many of us, although adding words of warning, appreciated the need to help other areas. But now there is no industry in London. For example, the furniture industry, which used to be evident in my constituency, is now spread over the four corners of the land. High Wycombe, Thurrock, Chelmsford and other places have the furniture industry and London still has those who formerly worked in that industry.
London has been left with service industries only. Therefore, it does not have facilities for young people to enter into apprenticeships. There are no longer any opportunities for people to go into industry and to become skilled. I have heard it argued that London must come to terms with itself and promote service industries. I am not sure that is right. I do not know how we can convert 7 million people to the argument that London should have no manufacturing base. We appear to

have lost the art of manufacturing in this country.
We have a deep-seated problem. This is what distinguishes London from other parts of the country. When the economy finally turns up, whereas provincial areas will be able to take advantage of it, London will not, because there will be no manufacturing jobs in the capital. We shall not be able to provide the job opportunities that people need. Therefore, the crisis for London will extend beyond the turn-up, whenever it comes. I counsel people to watch carefully the argument that we can accept that there is no need for manufacturing industry in London. That is a fallacious argument and should not be followed too closely.
I should like to take up some of the points which were made about public transport in London. Little by little, travelling in London is becoming almost impossible. It has become a hazard for those of us who live in the inner London area to get about by public transport. During the past three years we have witnessed the virtual breakdown of London Transport. For sheer incompetence, the Tory GLC takes some beating. Indeed, it has surpassed itself.
When Mr. Kenneth Robinson, former chairman of London Transport, was trying to get the thing into good order, he was regularly sniped at. As soon as the Conservatives took control of the GLC, they sacked him, not because he was incompetent or not doing his job but for typical party political dogma. In fact, Sir Horace Cutler decided on that spiteful action, which only he could be capable of. He sacked the man on the spot for no reason whatever, and put in his own placeman.
We get used to that sort of thing. I do not condone it, but nevertheless one gets used to it. Sir Horace Cutler put in Ralph Bennett, the great man who would solve all the problems. Not only did he place Mr. Ralph Bennett, but he placed other men as well. He even put in his mole, Mr. Leslie Chapman, in order to harass his colleagues. I do not quite understand the management technique that Sir Horace applied, but he did it.
The fanfare was that after all the years of failure, things would be different now that Mr. Ralph Bennett and all those other placemen were there. That was the high point of Toryism in London.


Many of us just sat back and watched. We did not criticise it then. We waited and thought "We shall see what happens at the end of three years". What has been the result? We have a service which has almost broken down. We have a less efficient service, and we have a horribly expensive service which has resulted in fewer passengers.
In the last two weeks we have been told that we have a bankrupt industry. It was so bankrupt that it needed a special meeting at County Hall to try to resolve the problem. As a result, we had a sacked chairman. As has been said, if all else fails, blame the chairman, sack him and start off afresh.
That was the placeman who would do so much three years ago, along with all the others who were appointed with him. So much for Tory enterprise! The Tories have had complete control. They cannot make any excuses whatsoever. They cannot even blame a Labour Government because a Conservative Government have been in power for half the time. Therefore, they are bereft of any excuses. I suppose that we can say that they were appointed by Sir Horace Cutler, run by Sir Horace Cutler and finally ruined by Sir Horace Cutler. The saddest thing is that we now have an appalling public transport system, and we still have to endure Sir Horace Cutler for another nine months. Goodness only knows what further damage will be inflicted upon us before London finally rids itself of this expensive popinjay.
There has been an equally disastrous situation in housing, which has already been well illustrated. It has long been recognised that the housing problems facing inner London boroughs cannot conceivably be solved by the inner London boroughs themselves. They will need help from the outer London boroughs. What is more, they need the help of the GLC as the strategic housing authority. The original reorganisation of London particularly made the GLC. I was one of those who opposed the creation of the GLC. I did not think that it was necessary. I happen to be a boroughs man, and I said so in those days. I said so to the Herbert Commission. I was never very happy about it, but finally, when all the various reasons were put to me as to why we should have a second tier, the one thing that I was seized of

was that a case could be argued for a strategic housing authority, because it was not possible, as I have said, for any inner London borough to resolve its own problems.
In the light of that, and in the light of the urgent housing problems that we have in inner London, the staggering story in housing after three years of Sir Horace Cutler is that he has abrogated his responsibilities for being the strategic housing authority. He has disowned his own responsibilities. In doing that he has kept large numbers of GLC properties all over London empty. He has kept them empty because, as he has argued, he wants them either to flog off to the people in the area or to hand back to the boroughs.
It was a deliberate policy, and in doing that he has made life impossible for people in a constituency such as mine where we rely entirely upon having an opportunity for people to move or transfer to other areas of London where their families are and where they prefer to be. Sir Horace Cutler has made it impossible for any of our tenants to be transferred. But he has gone further than that. He has not only made it impossible by keeping these places empty and making sure that no transfers take place. He has been running down the estates and neglecting repairs and maintenance. There has been a total and wilful refusal to plan, programme and build sufficient homes for the needs of London.
What is worse, perhaps, is that the GLC is deliberately refusing to provide sheltered homes for the elderly. In a debate such as this about a year ago, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Secretary of State for the Environment had just turned down a compulsory purchase order that had been placed by Hackney on a site which was seen to be most attractive for establishing about 40 sheltered homes for the elderly. The Secretary of State turned it down in favour of a speculative group.
I drew attention to sites in my constituency owned by this speculator. I said that it was a pity he did not do the work there before he took on other sites—in particular, the one where the sheltered housing could be put. This speculative body still has not touched the site in my area. It is in an appalling state


The public health people are having to be called in frequently to try to do some thing about it. There is corrugated sheeting all round it. The whole place is a disgrace. It is not surprising that some people who see it think it must be owned by the borough council, whereas it is owned entirely by the speculator. Nevertheless, it was the Secretary of State's argument that he felt it was better for the speculator to have the site rather than to have sheltered housing on the site.
Recently in Hackney the GLC built some sheltered housing for the elderly and provided within those homes all the usual aids for the elderly—the warning lights, the various attachments to the bath, and so on. Then it decided not to allow these to be used for sheltered housing. So, having paid to put all these things in, the council has gone round removing all the warning lights, the attachments to the baths and the other things specially provided for sheltered housing in order that it can put the houses up for sale. That is a disgrace.
All hon. Members who represent inner London constituencies have elderly folk coming to them Friday after Friday in their search for sheltered accommodation. I cannot understand why the Department is allowing Sir Horace and his colleagues to behave in such an appalling manner. It is behaviour that cannot be justified in any circumstances.
We have heard a great deal about shortholds. We have always had a form of shorthold. It is not a new idea. Shortholds were once called furnished tenancies. They were exactly the same arrangement. A tenant occupied the accommodation for a limited time and at the end of that time he was bound to leave. The effect of a shorthold is exactly the same.
I ask the Minister to explain to me what will happen after one year, two years, three years, four years or five years, whatever may be the length of the short-hold, when the landlord tells his tenant that he no longer wants him. The landlord will have the inalienable right to put out the tenant and his family. There will be no council housing to turn to because that has finished. There will be no recourse to the council for help. Who is going to house families in that posi-

tion? It was because people were being thrown out at the end of their "short-holds" that we introduced legislation to prevent that from happening. We are returning to where we started.
It is not true to say that we have never had shortholds before. Those of us who were chairmen of housing committees about 30 years ago well remember the basic problem of families being made homeless because of the shorthold system or the furnished tenancy system, which are one and the same thing.
I cannot envisage a shorthold system providing sheltered housing for the elderly. If the Government will not allow Hackney to provide it and they are prepared to stop the compulsory purchase order, and if the GLC will not have such housing because it is flogging off the units that it provided as sheltered accommodation, I ask the Minister who he suggests will provide sheltered housing for the elderly. He is directly responsible. He has chosen to stop the CPO in Hackney and he has permitted his friends in the GLC to sell off that which it provided as sheltered accommodation. The House is entitled to have a statement from the Minister that will explain who he thinks will provide the large number of sheltered housing units for the elderly that is required in the inner London area that I represent.
The GLC has acted to satisfy its doctrinaire party political dogma. In the meanwhile many elderly persons who are desperately seeking help from the councils are having to be turned away. It is a total disgrace. It is a deplorable state of affairs. The Tory GLC's record is a total disgrace.
The inter-borough nomination scheme is not working. The Minister relies on inter-borough nomination. The borough in the hon. Gentleman's constituency will not house people from Hackney. I asked Hackney officials to give me the names of the boroughs that were not offering accommodation to Hackney. The hon. Gentleman's beloved Camden was one of those boroughs. The chairman of the housing committee told me that there were difficulties. I advised him to tell the Minister as he, the Minister, did not seem to appreciate the difficulties.
The hon. Gentleman cannot rely upon the inter-borough nomination scheme. He


has had the same responsibilities as I have had in years gone by. He knows that good housing is not put into an interborough nomination scheme. Most of the stuff that goes into that sort of scheme will be that which no one wants locally.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) talked about mutual exchanges. I do not know how much exchanging the London borough of Bromley has done. It might have done exchanges with Bexley, but it has not done any with Hackney.

Mr. Race: The housing record of the London borough of Bromley is appalling. It cannot house the large number of those who require council accommodation. Indeed, it has no intention of doing so.

Mr. Brown: I have been known to suggest that the problem can be conveniently solved. The homeless of Bromley could be put on buses to Hackney. They could get off at the first stop. I accept that Bromley has never done very much.
Recently, the Minister was very kind to me. I wrote to him about an elderly brother and sister who wanted to get into a mobile home in Hammersmith. He was kind enough to involve himself immediately. He received an answer from Hammersmith to the effect that they were going to dismantle all the mobile homes. However, that is no longer true. I am told that Hammersmith will tart up the mobile homes, so that they can be made available to homeless families.
I invite the Minister to reconsider the case of Mrs. Bracey and Mr. Hutchins, and to discover whether Hammersmith can allocate separate mobile homes. They are very anxious to get into such homes. Indeed, Mr. Hutchins is now 73 or 74. I hope that the Minister will be able to help. However, that case again indicates that the inter-borough nomination scheme is not working. The Minister would be ill-advised to rely on it too much, and to argue that the housing problems of inner London can be solved in such a way.
London faces many problems. For example, we could discuss the problems of the Health Service. We could discuss other services, including the environmental services. In addition, the GLC is running down the fire brigade to a dangerous level. The fire brigade knows about such

things, and it has offered me evidence to that effect. If it were thought that the evidence was incorrect we could argue about it. However, we cannot argue with anybody, because the GLC does not discuss such issues with anyone. Such subjects do not seem to be discussed at committee meeting any more. Discussion takes place behind locked doors, in smoke-filled rooms. Suddenly a press release is issued and something happens. I am very concerned about the situation.

Mr. Wheeler: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has issued a Green Paper on fire brigade policy so that such points can be discussed in an informed manner?

Mr. Brown: I accept that, but the GLC took action first. It reduced manning levels before there had been any opportunity for discussion.

Mr. Race: Is not the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) that an enormous fire tragically took place recently at Alexandra Palace, in my constituency, and that the firemen and officers told me—as their local Member of Parliament—that they had had to strip the fire cover of the whole of London. If there had been another major conflagration in London, the fire brigade would not have been able to deal with it, or with many of the usual minor household fires.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful for that information. My experience is the same.
We should be discussing many London matters, but we must wait until May for the first part of the dividend when we get rid of the Tory regime at County Hall. Although we must wait nine months, the damage that will be done will be catastrophic. Housing, transport and the fire brigade will be destroyed. The council is trying desperately to destroy the ILEA. It is having an orgy of destruction. However, at the end of four years it will not be able to point to one achievement other than the destruction of everything. The council is turning everything into a farce. Please God, we shall never have to suffer another Tory administration in London.
I hope that we can unite on one issue at least. We must ensure that we debate London affairs at a more reasonable hour on a more regular basis so that we do not have to discuss the whole range of issues


every time. We should be able to identify areas of interests so that we can put the interests of Londoners more to the front than is possible at the absurd hour at which we have to have our debates.

Mr. Reg Race: We have had a wide-ranging debate. I wish to refer to some issues which have not yet been covered. First, I wish to reply to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) about the number of vacancies and the extent of unemployment in the greater London area. The hon. Gentleman has misconstrued the Government figures. I do not think that he is being deliberately misleading, but there are important points of principle about which we must get the record straight.
The Department of Employment's unemployment and vacancies returns each month are based on a single day on which the Department counts the number of men and women who are unemployed. It also counts the number of job vacancies in standard regions in the country. The figures obtained in that way are quite different from the figures which the hon. Member for Paddington gave to the House.
I am aware of the basis of the figures which the hon. Gentleman gave. They show a much larger number of vacancies in greater London than exist. The figures which he gave represent the number of vacancies notified to the Department during the whole of the month. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the velocity of circulation of vacancies that occurred during the whole of a calendar month. One of the most interesting things about unemployment and vacancy patterns in the area in the last few months is the extent to which vacancies have declined in conjunction with the decline in the other standard regions.
No reasonable person, looking at the figures objectively, could say that there is a substantial number of vacancies that exceeds the number of unemployed and leads one to believe that there is a mismatch between the available jobs and those seeking employment. That would be a fundamental misreading of the situation in London.
One has only to consider the Department of Employment's vacancy figures to appreciate the problem. Between July 1979 and July 1980, the number of vacancies in the United Kingdom fell from nearly 253,000 to 126,000. That is the impact of the recession on the United Kingdom, and it is clear that, although the number of vacancies notified to job-centres and employment exchanges is only one-third of the total, the economy is in a deep recession and that London cannot escape from that.
The hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) said that London faces problems that can be solved only by Government action. I agree that our major problems will be solved only by the Government taking responsibility for expanding the economy. The whole economic system is driven by two major factors—net exports and Government spending and taxation. The Government are hell bent on removing some of the major planks of employment creation throughout the country and particularly in London.
We have seen reductions in public expenditure and a substantial decline in net exports because of the overvalued pound. Those factors will drive the economy of London into a further, deep-seated recession and it will be revived only by a Government policy of reflation.
It is significant that no one has yet referred to the fact that London is the most vulnerable region in respect of public expenditure cuts, because of the high proportion of those in the region who are employed by central or local government or by other arms of public employment, such as the NHS. One of the most interesting aspects of the recent report by the Cambridge Economic Policy Group was its identification of Greater London as the area which had most to lose from public expenditure cuts.
In the present economic crisis, it is important for us to look at ways in which the Government could alleviate the problems of London and other regions. The Government's regional policy measures are increasingly being limited to areas with the worst social problems, which implies a greater reliance by the Government on the operation of market forces to produce a convergence between the economic performances of various regions. Market forces are supposed to


drag the North, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland into line with the operation of the labour and employment markets and the production system of the South-East. To anyone with a shred of economic knowledge, that analysis is absurd.
The Prime Minister has said to the House on a number of occasions that if jobs do not exist in the North, Scotland or Wales, workers have to move to where the jobs are. That can mean only one thing. Workers will move to jobs that are currently available in London, the South-East and other relatively advantaged areas. I wish to analyse that problem. It is important that the House should understand the consequences of what the Prime Minister proposes. Individual members of the labour force in poor areas will decide to move to areas such as London where there are jobs. In those same areas, however, some people will take less good jobs than if they migrated. This will result, in turn, in someone in that region becoming unemployed.
The filtering down process operates in all regions so that the least qualified and the least experienced are more likely to become unemployed. They are the people likely to be at the bottom of the job pile. In London, this process has a particular effect. Outward mobility for people who might have been employed in central London or the suburbs until recently, has been further restricted because of the large-scale abandonment of the new town and expanded town policies. Inward migration from assisted areas will only increase under these free migration policies.
In London, the filtering down process will operate with a vengeance. Those made unemployed will have nowhere to go, because there is probably no region that will be more prosperous than the South-East of England. Their ability to move to find jobs is therefore totally circumscribed and the number of jobs that will be available to them will be restricted because of an inflow of workers from other parts of the country. The inevitable consequence of the Prime Minister's policies of workers moving to the job—involuntary migration—is the socially undesirable production of a pool of workers in London who are totally

unemployable. These will be people with the fewest skills and the poorest education living in the inner city areas. Many thousands will be black.
Over the next 10 years, we shall see in London the creation of an extremely large and increasingly hostile pool of unemployed people. That is where the Government's policy is driving us. The House should be clear that it is the logical consequence of the Prime Minister's attitude to job mobility.

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. Are his remarks not illustrated by a Minister in the other place who said that one has to make people do a job of work whether they like it or not? Will not this approach mean that introduction of a chain gang-type situation, forcing people to undertake jobs such as breaking stones?

Mr. Race: My hon. Friend is right when he argues that there are Ministers in the Government prepared to say that workers should be made redundant, receive unemployment pay and go back to performing the same job they were performing before they were made redundant in the guise of voluntary service or some other guise. So in that sense my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
The only protection which Londoners will have against the creation of this large pool of urban unemployed is the fact that inward migration will be limited by the very free market that the Prime Minister wants to encourage. The aspect which will discourage that migration is, of course, the house market. If house prices are sufficiently high in London, that will be the only guarantee of relatively high employment.
Therefore, under the free market policies pursued by the Prime Minister, there is a trade-off between homlessness in London—the inability of our society to solve its housing problem—and keeping relatively high and stable employment in London. That is a scandalous trade-off, which the Government should never advocate. But that is what the Prime Minister is saying.
The London area has substantial variations of unemployment. Such areas as Tower Hamlets, Hackney and my own borough have considerably higher unemployment than London generally or the


country as a whole—certainly higher than the rest of the South-East. The variations between those parts of London and the more affluent parts such as north-west London, are greater than the variations between London as a whole and the so-called assisted areas.
The regional policy that the Government are pursuing—if one can dignify it by the term "regional policy", which I doubt—does not take that position into account. Thus we see the crude application of market force economics to London as a whole, and absolutely no understanding of the differentiation between different parts of London and their different economic problems. It is no exaggeration to say that in Tower Hamlets, Haringey, Hackney and other parts of inner London, the next few years are likely to see an acceleration of their relative decline in relation both to other regions and to the rest of London.
One of the Government's answers is that enterprise zones will be a significant and important answer to London's employment problem. I do not believe that. The enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs is likely to produce, on current levels of industrial density, about 15,000 jobs—and that assumes that every inch of the zone is taken up by business enterprise. An input of 15,000 jobs into Greater London as a whole—even assuming that they were new jobs and not jobs taken from anywhere else—although welcome, would be a drop in the ocean of London's employment problems. I hope that the Minister will not have the audacity to make that argument: he must have more respectable arguments than that.
There are other problems over regional policy. One difficulty is ministerial responsibility. The Under-Secretary is responsible, through the Department of the Environment, for certain aspects of regional policy which affect London. For example, the Department of the Environment is responsible for the regional policy aspects of local authorities, for the urban programme, for the new towns, for inner city policy, and for regional planning in England—although that has been dismantled now. But the Department of Industry, another major Government Department, is responsible for certain other aspects of regional policy. The

Department of Employment is responsible for employment and training. If one is talking about regional policy as a whole in the United Kingdom, one must consider the role of the Northern Ireland Office and the Scottish Office concerning regional policy in those areas, and one has to discuss regional policy as regards London in relation to those other parts of the United Kingdom.
There are at least six major Government Departments responsible in part for regional policy in the United Kingdom. Three of those relate to the situation in London. I do not suppose for a moment that there has been any serious consultation between any of those Government Departments about the way in which regional policy has affected London since the present Government took over. There has been no announcement of serious regional policy initiatives from the present Government because they believe that all the problems can be solved by market forces. I hope that this debate will produce a situation in which the Government will begin to think that regional policy has some part to play in alleviating the chronic problems of stress and unemployment in the inner city areas and in London as a whole.
The difficulties that we face because of the Government's attitude will be very serious over the next few years. The solutions that we might produce—these are relevant to the Consolidated Fund—are these. If the Government are prepared to spend only a certain amount on industrial support and regional grants and are prepared to do virtually nothing for London, other than the enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs, presumably Opposition Members have the responsibility of putting forward serious alternatives for expanding employment and industrial development in the capital. These must cover a number of major areas.
First, sites in inner London should qualify for Industry Act financial assistance. That would produce a situation in which local authorities and private industrialists would be able to obtain money from the Government in order to create jobs in sensitive areas.
Secondly, local authorities clearly have a major role to play, and not only concerning their current functions. They ought to be given greater powers to clear


sites, to secure land and to engage in trading and production themselves, because without the removal of the constraint of the restricted sites in London, which affects many industries, including some in my constituency, there is a great possibility that increasing numbers of factories will, as they have in the past, move out of London on to green field sites in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Kent, Surrey and Essex, simply because they can expand more readily in those areas and create employment there.
Thirdly, we have to argue for a general expansion of the economy as a whole. The industrial and regional problems of London cannot be solved by regional policy alone. They must be determined by the overall economic and political stance taken by the Government.
The economic consequences of the present Prime Miniser will be just as serious as the economic consequences of Mr. Churchill when he deliberately and cynically decided to move the economy back on to the gold standard in the 1920s. That decision provided the basis for the great depression and the great recession in Britain in the 1920s and 1930s.
I believe that the policies that the present Government are pursuing in relation to the economy as a whole are so appallingly naive that they will drive the economy into the deepest recession that it has known for 50 years, in which London will be dragged down to the status of a high-unemployment region, a region in which there will be a substantial number of unemployed people, which will see a relative fall in its prosperity, which will perhaps see an increasing inward migration of workers from other regions, and which will not be able to solve its serious social problems, to which many of my hon. Friends have referred tonight.
Without a clear indication from the Government tonight of their intention on regional policy and the expansion of the economy, no fine words from the Minister can convince us that they have got it right. We believe that they have got it fundamentally wrong, and we hope that they will change their policies as quickly as possible, or make way for people who will take the right decisions.

Dr. Oonagh McDonald: On Wednesday 23 July The Daily Telegraph had the following headline about the unemployment figures, which had reached a new peak:
South-East Hit Hard As Jobless Soars To Peak Of 1,896,634.
It said in the article underneath the headline:
Ominously, the normally prosperous South, including the Greater London area, has been particularly hard hit, with another 54,500 on the dole.
That sums up exactly what some of my hon. Friends and I wish to emphasise tonight—both the extent of unemployment in the Greater London area and its significance.
We have heard a great deal from the Prime Minister about the need for mobility among the work force. She has said that the Welsh should simply uproot themselves once again and flood into London and the South-East to find the many jobs that are allegedly available for skilled and unskilled workers. The right hon. Lady's remark, made in Wales, was made with the most crass insensitivity to the history of Wales and the many who suffered from harsh unemployment in the past and who had to tear themselves away to look for work elsewhere. How she could go to Wales and say that is almost impossible to understand. It is hard to believe that she actually said it.
The Prime Minister seems not to know what is going on in the country that she is, at the moment, governing. She fails to realise that not only is unemployment increasing in the Greater London area but the number of vacancies are declining sharply. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) gave the year-on-year figures. Even if we take the month-on-month figures, we find that the change since June in the seasonally adjusted figures for the Greater London area is a drop of 4.6 per cent. in the number of vacancies registered. Those vacancies continue to decline.
Two further matters emphasise the situation in the country as a whole, but particularly in the Greater London area. The Sunday Times has been publishing week after week in its business news section a column listing job losses, rightly


headed "The Gathering Storm"—a lovely title. The storm is coming. The Government do not yet realise that it will hit them with the fullest possible force in the autumn. They do not understand the extent and nature of that storm and what it will do to them and to the country.
I shall go through that list of job losses, picking out only the months of May and June and the jobs affecting workers in the Greater London area. On 17 May, 600 jobs on the Isle of Grain disappeared, not for the simple reason that has been presented in the press, of an inter-union dispute. The whole situation on the Isle of Grain is much more complex than that. In June 280 jobs disappeared at Thermalite, the concrete block manufacturing plant at Grays, Essex. A further 1,700 jobs disappeared in the Port of London. Ford (UK) has asked for voluntary redundancies of 2,300 in its United Kingdom plants as a whole and that affects workers at Dagenham, and many of my constituents. Towards the end of June a further 400 jobs disappeared at Delta Metal brass rod factory in London. A further 120 jobs disappeared in the Chrysler London office.
Week after week The Sunday Times records these figures, rather like casualties in a war. In a sense that is what they are, casualties in an economic war. These are job losses that are not simply and solely due to lack of demand. These are not jobs which will necessarily reappear if the economic miracle which the Government seem to think will take place this year, next year, some time, takes place. They do not simply depend on loss of demand. They are part of the destruction of British industry which has been taking place and which has been sharply accelerated by the activities of this Government.
My constituency is a good illustration of this point. It was, as my constituents are apt to point out to me, a thriving manufacturing area. About 40 per cent. of the work force in Thurrock is employed in manufacturing industry. Unemployment in my constituency is now at not quite the national average. It is 6·3 per cent. It is certainly higher than the average for the South-East as a whole. What is worse is what is going on there

now. Earlier this year an analysis of a large number of major firms in my constituency was carried out for me. Not one of those firms planned to recruit labour during the course of this year. Most of those firms were declining in terms of numbers employed, some through voluntary redundancies, some through natural wastage and some through actual redundancies, through closure of firms.
I have in my constituency about 500 unemployed school leavers as from this week. Hardly any will find vacancies in apprenticeships with Shell or Esso or Thames Board or Thames Case. The opportunities for apprenticeships there simply do not exist. In spite of the Prime Minister's boasts about the enormous opportunities in the youth opportunities scheme I estimate that about one in five of the school leavers in Thurrock will find a place on the youth opportunities scheme immediately. Other places may be made available to them later this year, but certainly many of them will go straight on to the dole. There can be no question of an offer of a place on the youth opportunities scheme or any other training course in the area in the immediate future.
Let me take one or two examples of the firms that are closing in my constituency. Last week Thames Board Mills finally sacked 800 workers. The British Paper and Board Manufacturers Association has given a good explanation of part of the reasons for those closures. The reasons given are interesting. They are high interest rates, imports, high energy costs and the high pound. Those four factors together have made it extremely difficult for British paper and board manufacturers to make a profit. They have made it virtually impossible for them to compete with firms in Germany, France, Canada and America. They cannot compete effectively and export their goods there.
Every one of those reasons and criticisms given by the Manufacturers Association are aspects of deliberate Government policy. The high pound, high energy costs, high interest rates and the refusal to protect our basic industries against imports are all important planks of Government policy. Notice that I said that the criticism was made by the Manufacturers Association. That association


launched that fundamental attack on Government policy. It was not the trade unions, or the Left wing of the Labour Party. It was the Manufacturers Association and it has repeated its attack on Government policy again and again and has taken every opportunity to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House of what is wrong with Government policy and how it is utterly destroying that industry.
I take the Thermalite factory, referred to in The Sunday Times list, as another example. Redundant workers there are shortly to be joined by a small number of redundant workers—about 25—from another company in my constituency called Aerated Concrete. However, the workers in Thermalite represented by their shop stewards told me bitterly that they thought that the Prime Minister would be proud of them. Last year they negotiated a productivity deal. They cut down the number of hours worked and increased productivity in the company by 40 per cent. What do they now find? A year later the factory closes and they all lose their jobs.
There was a group of workers consciously, over a period of time, negotiating what they considered to be a good deal for themselves and their employers and the result is still closure. The reason for that is not high unit labour costs. The reason is simple. It is the impact of Government policies on the construction industry and, therefore, on that industry's need for basic building materials. The high interest rate policy has forced companies which manufacture the basic materials for building into liquidation or closure.
Nor is it simply the high interest rate policy that does that. The sharp cuts in public spending, especially on capital expenditure have had a disastrous impact on companies such as those in my constituency. There will be others as well, because the construction industry must be reeling under the blows which this Government are raining upon it. It must wonder whether it can ever recover on the production side. We find here that the direct impact of Government policies is raising unemployment sharply in my constituency. That means that there are no vacancies for skilled workers. There is no effort on the part of local companies

to offer apprenticeships to young people who are genuinely and earnestly seeking employment.
The vacancies that the Prime Minister fondly imagines exist in London and the South-East do not exist in the way that she and some Conservatives seem to imagine. Of course, that means that the migrant workers who flood into London and the surrounding areas looking for work will find that there are no jobs and no homes either.
In my constituency, for the first time, a borough council, which under Labour had the proud record of starting a house a day every day since the Second World War, now finds under the Tory Administration from which it is suffering that no council houses will be built, and that the housing improvement programme that is desperately needed in an area where much of the housing stock is pre-war is sharply cut back and those houses will further deteriorate. That means a lack of jobs as well as of homes, and the social consequences of that will be disastrous for many families in my constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) spoke earlier about those who say that it does not matter that jobs do not exist because workers can switch from manufacturing to service industries. It is not quite as easy, of course, to do that. It is difficult in my constituency, for example, to retrain redundant shiprepairers in their 40s and 50s and send them on expensive trains into central London in order to find clerical work.
That apart, something much more significant is happening in London and the South-East. Like the West Midlands, it is one of the relatively prosperous areas in which manufacturing industry is sharply declining. That shows that Britain is rapidly—much more rapidly under this Government—becoming deindustrialised. That tells us two things about Government policy—first, that the Government no longer wish to look to manufacturing industry in this country to provide the wealth for the future. I believe that the Government have it in mind to allow companies here to transfer production abroad—those companies that are the source of many of our exports—and fritter the oil wealth away on unnecesary defence spending. In that way they will jettison


our future for the sake of the present in the hope of winning the next election.

Mr. Race: Does my hon. Friend recall that in The Observer on Sunday a figure of £ 3 billion was given as the net outflow from the United Kingdom after the lifting of exchange controls by the Government last year? Does she believe that the money could have been used more effectively to increase the social wage and to increase employment in manufacturing industry? Would not that money be useful to assist the depressed areas in the South-East as well as the North?

Dr. McDonald: That is the point that I wished to develop. My hon. Friend attempted earlier to put forward constructive policies by rightly reminding us of the need for a proper regional policy in order to prevent migrants from flooding into London and the South-East, thus adding to the unemployment figures and the social problems there. This money should be used constructively in London and the South-East. The paraphernalia of Government intervention is available. For example, selective assistance for industry could assist failing industries in my area. We should have a proper programme of planned public spending instead of cutting back an capital spending, which is desperately needed for schools, hospitals and roads. We need a proper programme of capital spending, which would greatly assist all industries, particularly those in my area.
I should also like to see a change in the Government's policy on derelict land clearance. At present it relates only to development areas, because it is tied to a certain level of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green mentioned the pressures on space for factory expansion in inner city areas. In my constituency there are vast tracts of derelict land. It is impossible for the borough council from its own resources to provide 50 per cent. of the expenditure in order to reclaim that land for industrial purposes. Use of those vast tracts of land on a site adjacent to London and the docks and which, as time passes, will be the site of an important road network would greatly enhance employment opportunities throughout East

London. We need a change in the policy for supporting local authorities as they attempt to make derelict land available for industrial purposes.
The Government deliberately missed another opportunity. They put an end to the river Thames ship repairers, withdrawing the urgently needed ship repairing facility from the Port of London Authority. They let the opportunity pass to deal with the PLA's finances and upgrade the docks in the East End and Tilbury. I want to see viable, thriving and competitive docks throughout the Port of London. Those docks can compete properly with the Continental ports only if they are subsidised to the same extent. Once we have thriving docks, we also have jobs in dock-related industries. Opportunity after opportunity has been squandered by this Government to improve job opportunities in London and the South-East. Worse than that, the effect of their economic policies will be to destroy London as a manufacturing city and speed the process of deindustrialising Britain. We want to see those policies reversed before it is too late.

Mr. Ted Graham: We are indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for his determination to be here at 2 am. He started the debate at a good pace. My hon. Friends the Members for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), Tooting (Mr. Cox), Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson), Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), Wood Green (Mr. Race) and Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) have also usefully contributed to the debate. They have introduced their own individual brand of passion, anger and experience. As I took notes of the various points on which I wanted to comment, I found a common thread running through them. Top of the list—and it was no surprise—was housing, followed by transport and employment and unemployment. There is no doubt that the villain of the night is Sir Horace Cutler. The quicker he gets his cards—and that will be next May—the better.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State, in his courteous and careful way, will have paid close attention to all the points that were made, but at this early stage I ask him to consider particularly


the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green about the London fire brigade service. The Minister will recall that on a previous occasion when I had the temerity to make similar points I got short shrift from him. I was accused of being alarmist about the situation at that time. I share the same local experience and newspapers as my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green. I confirm that the local newspapers have carried accounts of the comments that my hon. Friend said we made to him by the local firemen. I ask the Minister at an early stage to make inquiries into the matter and to let us know the results.
I pay tribute to the contributions by the hon. Members for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt), Streatham (Mr. Shelton) and Paddington (Mr. Wheeler). They were clearly from a different point of view, but they were serious, subdued and defensive. I was surprised. As the debate was billed as being about London and its problems, particularly with the Greater London Council in mind, I expected a defiant rather than a defensive note from the Government Benches. Frankly, they are resigned to the certainty that there will be a change in the control of the GLC next year.
Housing is certainly high on the list of London's problems. I recall listening to the Secretary of State for the Environment on a radio programme defensively saying to the interviewer that he could not be expcted to carry all the can. "After all", he said, "we have been in government for only 15 months." That is absolutely true. Not everything in the Government's court can be wholly held to be their responsibility. But the government of the GLC has had responsibility not for 15 months but for more than three years. The GLC was formed in 1964, and the Tories have had control for nine of its 16 years. Therefore, it is not as easy for the Tory GLC to slip away from its responsibility as for the Tory Government at Westminster.
Housing in London has to be seen against the background of two devastating commentaries on London and the nation which have come our way in the past few weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South referred copiously and correctly to the evidence in the report of the Select

Committee on Environmental Matters which came out in the past week. Apparently 500,000 fewer homes will be built by 1985 than were forecast in the 1977 Green Paper and a nationwide level of 30,000 fewer houses will be built in the public sector by 1983–84. A severe imbalance in cuts has been planned for housing. Of all the public expenditure reductions that have emerged from this Government in the last 15 months, 92 per cent. of the cuts are to be found in the construction and housing spheres. By 1984, only 4 per cent. of total public expenditure will be spent on housing, whereas in 1974 the figure was 10 per cent. That is the measure of the decline in the Government's housing priorities.
However, we do not have to rely simply on the national picture, because the GLC has produced its own housing strategy for 1981 to 1983. That document represents a gloomy prospect for Londoners, which is worse than for the country as a whole. That document was debated at County Hall in the past few weeks. It reveals, first, that there are three times as many unfit dwellings—253,000, or 10 per cent. of the stock—in London as there were thought to be last year. In all, 642,000 dwellings—25 per cent. of the total—need substantial work carried out on them. Secondly, the demand for reasonably priced rented accommodation will be greater than the supply until at least 1985. Thirdly, the long-term trend of improving housing conditions based on substantial public investment has been reversed. Fourthly, house building in London, in the public and the private sector, has been more than halved. There were 24,600 starts in 1975, and only 11,000 starts in 1979. The proposed changes in the Housing Bill will not remotely stimulate the private sector to replace the public sector investment.
Frankly, that strategy statement serves as a gloomy warning of what will happen, not only under the current GLC but also under the Government over the next few years. When the Secretary of State announced the HIP allocation for 1980–81 in February, it was for English authorities and it totalled £2,199 million. While that was a colossal figure, when analysed it revealed that it was 24 per cent. below what the local authorities were expecting to spend in 1979–80. It was 32 per cent.


below what was allocated by the Government for 1979–80. It was 39·5 per cent. below Labour's allocation for 1979–80, and it was a colossal 52 per cent. below what the local authorities requested as essential for their spending for the years 1980–81.
As every hon. Member present knows, the money that was made available under the HIP allocation will largely be spent merely to fulfil the existing commitments. It certainly led to many authorities, including the GLC, stopping Council mortgages for those who wished to buy their houses.
The GLC's house building record is also interesting. In 1973, it built 4,363 houses. By 1976 the number had risen to 7,342. In 1978 it declined to 3,136. In 1979 it had gone down to 1,336, and now in 1980 the miserable estimate is that 400 houses will be built by the GLC.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Scandalous".] When the Tory GLC in its strategy document said:
New building has a low priority",
what it really meant was that it had no priority at all. As my hon. Friends have rightly pointed out, the housing situation which London now faces is a scandal and a disgrace. It must be defended tonight by the Minister. I appreciate that he has a responsibility for the Government, but he is also entitled to speak on behalf of his political friends at County Hall.
The National House Building Council forecasts that new starts by private developers will be down from 140,000 to 100,000 in 1980. In fact, the new housing starts in the public and private sector this year will be the lowest not for the last 10 or 30 years but for the last 5Zr years. This is the indictment that not only I bring but also the National House Building Council and every Londoner who is desperate for a house bring to the Minister tonight. It is his responsibility to answer for it.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch pointed out, one of the sad things has been the decline in the strategic role envisaged for housing 10 to 15 years ago between the GLC and the boroughs. I will give an illustration from my own constituency of Edmonton. In 1966, the Labour borough council and the Labour GLC combined to buy the Klinger site, formerly

a factory, which became vacant in Silver Street. The sum of £3 million was paid by the GLC so that eventually, when the site was developed, the housing would be used not merely to house GLC tenants but also tenants from the London borough of Enfield. Over the next 12 or 13 years, despite the change in council control, in GLC control and in central control, the position remained the same.
The 330 houses, when they were built, were intended to be there for renting to 330 families, wherever they came from. I was on that site on Friday and one of the ladies I met there in the old people's dwellings was from Hackney. The concept had been followed through. But in 1978, without any consultation, the GLC and the Tory Enfield council reneged on 15 years of planning. Despite the fact that those houses had been built for rent, it was decided to sell them.
That was a catastrophe. At my surgery I meet many of my constituents who have been waiting for years in tower blocks, and in my part of Edmonton their escape from the tower blocks built in the 1960s was into the flats and the maisonettes on the Klinger site. What has happened since? The GLC decided to sell, aided and abetted by the Tory Enfield council. The properties then went for sale—£30,000 for a three-bed-roomed flat. The GLC and the Enfield council could not do otherwise. They were hemmed in; it was a Catch 22 position. They were determined doctrinally to sell, but they were inhibited and they had to sell them, not at the market price but at not less than the price at which they were built.
In March it was decided to put the houses on the market. What happened then? At the recent meeting of the housing committee, after more than four months and intense effort to sell the houses, guess how many of the 270 flats—excluding 60 for old people—have been sold? Only six have been sold, despite the most intensive efforts. In the local newspaper last week, Miss Cook, the council director of housing, admitted,
It would seem that without a massive financial investment in advertising nothing further can be achieved.
Six out of 263 having been sold, what is to happen to the 257 which are unsold and unoccupied? The Enfield Tories are more optimistic about what is to happen


than their own director of housing. At that meeting John Lindsay, the chairman of the housing committee, said:
We are not turning our back on this.… We have done our best. They have only been up for sale for a short time and the rest is up to the GLC.
Umpteen millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been invested to buy the land and build the houses. There is now an intensive campaign to sell them. The net result is that there are 250 houses on the site waiting to be bought. If the price of the houses is £30,000 this year, it should be £33,000 after a year has passed. If £30,000 of public money were not tied up in an empty house, it would be invested. If those concerned are proper business men, they must ask for £33,000 next year. Never mind the Enfield families that are desperate for a flat, the policy of the GLC and Enfield Conservative council is to let them stand and wait in the queue.
The Government's attitude to housing was well summed up by an editorial that appeared in The Guardian on 30 July following the publication of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment. It stated:
The charge against the Government is not that it has cut housing—which is the obvious victim in a financial squeeze—but that the cuts have been carried out in secret, seemingly without any rational approach and in too severe a manner.
Mr. Heseltine's rationality is suspect because his policy has such an ideological smack. Subsidies to council tenants are to be cut back to £600 million—possibly to £200 million—while the hidden subsidy which mortgage tax relief provides will hardly dip below the £1,500 million level.
The result of this package can only mean an increase in the number of homeless, a lengthening of house waiting lists, an increase in voluntary sharing with more young people delaying their marriages and an increase in house prices because of the housing shortage. It is a policy which if persisted in the Government will come to regret.
The writing is on the wall on the Government's housing policies.
I turn briefly to employment in London. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their excellent speeches. They will appear in the record and all Londoners will be grateful to my hon. Friends for making them. They speak with experience on the South-East.
In the past London enjoyed relatively good employment. That no longer applies. In the past 200 years London has lost 500,000 jobs. The pace of decline in London is barely matched elsewhere. London industry has declined by one third in the past 20 years. Between 1974 and 1979 female unemployment increased fivefold. Male unemployment doubled.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock: she spoke of the opportunities that exist for using available land that can be turned to good use. In London there are 35 square miles of land that is classified as unused and available.
There are more than 1 million public sector workers in London. When the Government attack public expenditure they make a direct attack upon 1 million public sector employees. My hon. Friend has said that so many of our troubles can be laid firmly at the Government's door. Those troubles include high interest rates, inflation, falling demand, import penetration, and export failure. They are all the direct result of Government policy. How can the Government improve employment in London? As my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green said, London's employment must be tackled on a co-ordinated basis. More than one Department has responsibility, and there should be a co-ordinated effort.
London needs a more clearly defined policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting rightly pointed out that London needs a Minister. We need a policy, but neither the GLC nor the Government have given us one. There should be a partnership between private and public finance. Manpower planning should be more co-ordinated. In addition, training should be taken to a higher level.
Deindustrialisation is increasing. It should be reversed. We need something that we have not seen for 15 months, namely, a partnership of unparalleled intensity between Westminster and County Hall. However, I doubt whether we shall get that from the deadly duo of Heseltine and Cutler—the "H and C". I do not know who is hot and who is cold. That deadly duo will not improve London. When the GLC becomes Labour-controlled once again next May, we may see a semblance of improvement.
Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the problem of transport. I pay tribute to the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South. He gave us a graphic description of the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shore-ditch rightly pointed out that responsibility for such scandal and disgrace undoubtedly rests with the leader of the GLC. Because of his arrogance and determination to be in front, he nailed his flag to the mast. He nailed himself to a government and to a party of business men at County Hall when, in a peremptory manner, he dismissed the former chairman of London Transport, who had done a first-class job. We all recognised that he had a major problem. Three and a half years later the men that he put in are being taken out in the same arrogant, unfeeling, but now justifiable way.
London Transport was the pride of London for a long time. It is not so any more. A recent report considered all London Transport's operations, and concluded:
In summary, we diagnose that the executive board is weak in the skills required to run a large business, and indeed to manage itself as board.
That is a savage indictment of the board, and of the man who appointed them, Mr. Horace Cutler.
What do we need? First, we should switch the present emphasis on roads, to public transport. Higher priority should be given to pedestrians in London. People are more important than motor cars. We should try to achieve an integrated policy for public transport. Negotiations should be opened with British Rail in order to integrate all commuter-related services. That must be done quickly. The staff of London Transport must be consulted. The staff's experience and innovative spirit must be harnessed to serve Londoners. There must be a radical review of the fares policy to attract back the millions of Londoners who have deserted the buses. Whether transport is free, or fares are fixed or low, there must be a positive, sustained attack on high fares immediately.
There has been a decline in the morale of staff in the GLC. It was never lower. The evidence can be seen in County Hall and by speaking to councillors and staff.

In June further cuts of 1,735 in GLC staff levels were announced. That is to take place by 1981. That is on top of 4,000, or 16 per cent., who have been dismissed, made redundant or retired since the Tories took control in 1977. Many of the posts have gone because of changes in national Government policies.
My constituents have little faith that the policies of the Government or GLC will bring them relief. By democratic means we have a Tory Government and a Tory GLC. They are both disastrous. By democratic means at the GLC election in 1981, and at the subsequent general election, we shall rid London and the nation of those twin catastrophies. That day cannot come a moment too soon.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I join in the tribute to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for being fortunate to head the distinguished cast in the debate on the Consolidated Fund. I am glad that he stayed, at considerable inconvenience, to open the debate. I understand from conversations that I have had with him why he is not with us now.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the problem of the St. John's estate in his borough. The facts are simply that the Wandsworth council sought consent to dispose of the estate. I am satisfied that there is no reason for me to interfere with the council's plans to dispose of the three vacant blocks for on-sale after completion of improvement into owner-occupation. However, I am anxious to ensure that tenants in the remaining two blocks are fully aware of what is involved, both under the right-to-buy and the security of tenure provisions of the Housing Bill, if they move from their present homes. That is why Wandsworth has been told that consent to sell the tenanted blocks will not be forthcoming until I am satisfied on that point.
My hon Friend the Member for Ravens-bourne (Mr. Hunt) emphasised one of the most important points which came through in many speeches—the need for an increase in the amount of housing in London. He emphasised the vital importance of shorthold which we believe will make a substantial contribution to housing in London. I also noted what


my hon. Friend said about enterprise zones. It is interesting that, in spite of what Opposition Members say, the demands from Labour boroughs in London for enterprise zones indicate that Opposition Members are not representative of their local authorities, which want enterprise zones. I am delighted that the Isle of Dogs featured in the first list and I shall pass on to my right hon. Friend the suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne made about other zones.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) made an interesting speech which showed clearly that he has not understood the facts of life in the real world. That came through in many of the speeches by Labour Members, though not in that of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). One of those facts is that we cannot spend more than we earn—and that has happened for far too long in this country.
When complaining about the shortage of money for housing purposes, the hon. Member made no reference to the facility that his local authority will be able to obtain to add to the allocation by the sale of its dwellings to tenants, many of whom in Newham wish to buy.
The hon. Member asked about the purpose of Trident and the need to spend more money on it. That will be the subject of another debate, but I say to those who share the hon. Member's views that, without Trident and restored defences, the citizens of London would not be free to enjoy debates such as the one that we have had. Labour Members laugh. It is easy to laugh in a democracy, but they should recognise that we retain democracy only by remaining strong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) paid tribute to the GLC for the fantastic transformation that it has made to Covent Garden, which it has aided in such a far-sighted manner. I am delighted to join in that tribute.
However, my hon. Friend made a mistake when he referred to the Labour Party knocking shorthold and said that the Labour threat to give security of tenure of shortholders would make landlords less likely to let. I do not believe that any landlord believes that the Labour Party will form a Government in the foreseeable future. I do not be-

lieve that there is any problem with shorthold.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) produced rather late in the day, and on a matter which is not the day-to-day responsibility of the GLC, a common feature in London debates, namely, the expected attack on Sir Horace Cutler. Sir Horace is attacked time and again for a variety of reasons—he is a formidable opponent of the Labour Party, he is single minded in his commitment to let GLC tenants buy their homes, he and the Tory GLC have cut staff substantially without any compulsory redundancies, and he has held the rate in a remarkable fashion.
All that deserves praise and I am delighted to give it to Sir Horace. The citizens of London are fortunate to have such a man in control, rather than the spendthrifts of places such as Manchester who are getting themselves deeper into debt because they pay no heed to the needs of tenants or ratepayers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler) made an important contribution, because he gave us some hard common sense on figures. In spite of attempts to denigrate them, the official figures are clear. My hon. Friend said that too many jobs in London remain unfilled. There is a substantial number of unfilled vacancies in London in spite of all that we hear about unemployment. I noted what my hon. Friend had to say about the Control of Pollution Act and I will see that his remarks are passed to my hon. Friends with special responsibility for that aspect of matters.
The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown), an old opponent in these debates—he and I have managed to get more London debates than many people at one time thought possible—spoke with knowledge and depth of feeling about his constituency of which I have some knowledge in my capacity as chairman of the Hackney and Islington Partnership. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his work to increase the number of jobs in the area. He asked about sheltered housing. I have to say, that as he well knows, the London borough of Hackney has a substantial amount of vacant land. It is for the borough of Hackney, on its vacant land, to decide where it puts first priority for


the provision of sheltered housing. That is not the responsibility of the central Government. Our responsibility is to allocate the total amount that the London borough of Hackney can spend. It is for the borough to decide how it allocates that amount between various kinds of new-build, maintenance, insulation grants, home loans and so on.
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman further. He will have to get an answer from Mare Street about why some of the vacant land is not being used for sheltered housing—

Mr. Ronald W. Brown: I was making the point that the London borough of Hackney had identified a site but that the Secretary of State refused its compulsory purchase.

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman perhaps failed to hear, due to some strange noise from the Benches near to him, that I stated that the borough had some land within its own ownership and had no need to acquire further land. The borough already owns a lot of land that is undeveloped. When it has finished developing that land, I could understand the hon. Gentleman making the sort of complaint that he has raised.
The hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) tried to dispute the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington. My hon. Friend was quoting from a written reply which indicated that, in the course of the month ending 12 June 1980, 41,992 vacancies were notified in the particular area. The hon. Gentleman said that those figures indicated a longer period.

Mr. Race: I was right.

Mr. Finsberg: The answer went on to say that at 6 June, a particular date, there were 36,522 vacancies at employment offices. That answer, like the earlier answer, indicates that only about one-third of all vacancies are notified. This indicates that there are about 100,000 vacancies in Greater London—a very different story from that heard from Opposition Members. The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, inadvertently, misquoted my hon. Friend the Member for Ravensbourne, who did not say that London could be saved only by national action. My hon. Friend said that London

would benefit when the Government conquered inflation—a different thing from Government action which means cranking the printing press and turning out more notes that are not backed by production.
I welcome the hon. Member for Thurrock to our London debates. She made an interesting contribution. We are glad to welcome her, even as a non-Londoner. She spoke of "the gathering storm" with, I thought, a certain amount of relish. That might not be unfair.

Dr. McDonald: It is a disgusting remark.

Mr. Finsberg: It is no more disgusting than some of the things the hon. Lady was saying. If the storm that she forecasts is to come, I can only say that a substantial number of people, not only in the South-East but also in the North-East and the North-West, tell me "For God's sake, don't change your policies now." I assure the hon. Lady and the House that they need have no fear. We are embarked upon a course determined to remove inflation from our system. Until inflation is removed, everything else will suffer. I think that behind the hon. Lady's remarks lay an unwillingness to recognise that her Government lost the last election.
Those hon. Members who mentioned the fire at Alexandra Palace will appreciate that the London fire brigade is not within my departmental responsibilities. I will see that they get answers. However, I must remind them that the reorganisation of the London fire brigade had the approbation of the Home Office because it met its standards. Speaking as a layman—I am sure that the hon. Member for Edmonton is no more of an expert on this—I would say that it would be unusual if the bulk of the force were not committed to stopping a fire of this size. Whether the old manning was in existence or not, I still believe that the same proportion would have been committed to that size of fire.
I do not propose to comment on what has been said about the Select Committee, because its report has to be studied and will in due course receive a considered response from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Race: That is a start.

Mr. Finsberg: Unlike the last Government, we respond swiftly to Select Committee reports.
This debate has ranged far wider than just housing. I hope that I have done my best so far, in my usual helpful and non-controversial fashion, to answer some of the issues raised. I want to deal in more depth with housing in a moment, but I shall deal first with another subject which has been raised. I will ask my right hon. Friends to respond directly by correspondence to non-housing issues which have been raised.
On industry, the Government have decided to concentrate the limited resources available for regional assistance on those areas of the country with the worst problems of persistently high unemployment and long-term structural decline. Assisted areas are normally designated by reference to whole travel-to-work areas, since they represent self-contained labour markets for which the Department of Employment quotes unemployment rates. Within a travel-to-work area such as London, there are, of course, pockets of high unemployment, but the TTWA's overall unemployment rate of 4·8 per cent. is well below the national average and compares favourably with areas such as Merseyside and Tyneside, both of which have suffered from unemployment in double figures for a considerable time. In view of this, I do not believe that assisted area status could be thought appropriate for the London area.
Labour Members have painted an alarming picture of rapid deterioration in housing conditions in London and of Government inactivity in face of a growing problem. Both images are far from the facts. A man from Mars listening to this debate would have thought that London housing history began only in May 1979. Labour Members like to forget that, in the majority of the years since 1946—not 1964—the control of London's housing has been overwhelmingly under the control of Labour local authorities. It would be stretching the imagination too much to blame this Government for all the ills or for failing to remedy them forthwith.
London's housing has improved immensely in recent years, in terms of both availability and physical condition. The Government remain firmly committed to

sustaining the momentum of that improvement.

Mr. Race: Rubbish!

Mr. Finsberg: Of course, given the overall economic background and the need—clearly recognised by the previous Government—to reduce the burden of public expenditure, public sector housing has had to take its share of the cuts; but we do not accept that the only way to deal with a problem is to throw public money at it.
Mention was made of the Greater London house condition survey. That shows that there is a significant problem of disrepair in basically sound properties in both the public sector and the private sector, and of unfitness, though often for technical reasons, in scattered houses in all parts of London and all sectors of housing stock. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will recognise that several recent Government initiatives are relevant here.
It is worth reminding hon. Members of the achievements of the recent past, under Governments of both parties. The number of dwellings in London lacking one or more basic amenities has been roughly halved in the past decade; so has the number of households living in overcrowded conditions. Now, for the first time, there are in London more dwellings than households, though of course, for a variety of reasons, that does not mean that there is no longer a problem; but the situation is not as black as it has been painted.
There are, indeed, still too many families living in unsatisfactory conditions, and, of course, expectations are constantly rising. But the nature of the problem is changing, and the blanket solutions of the past are no longer appropriate. The emphasis of public sector housing policy must now be on meeting special needs, such as those of the elderly and handicapped; on making the best use of the existing housing stock, and ensuring that fit houses do not fall into disrepair—

Mr. Race: Absolute tripe.

Mr. Finsberg: —and on meeting reasonable aspirations such as those for mobility and for low-cost home ownership.
The repair and improvement grant provisions of the Housing Bill, in particular the wider availability of repair grants and the new opportunity for tenants to receive grant, will permit a more finely tuned approach to the problems of particular areas. The increase in owner-occupation through the sale of council flats and houses and other measures to encourage low-cost home ownership will give more people a direct stake in their housing and an incentive to improve it. The measures in the Bill designed to retain a healthy private rented sector will encourage private landlords to improve their property and keep it in repair.
As I have said, public expenditure must be controlled, and London has had to accept its share of the reductions. But it is quite wrong to say that the Government have discriminated against London, or against housing in London.
To the extent that housing took a more than proportionate share of the reductions, this is the continuation of a trend begun under the previous Government—that fact is incontrovertible—and is a consequence of the improvement in housing conditions I have described, and the need to spend resources more selectively. As for the regional allocations, we have been determined to make funds available where they are most needed, rather than simply giving money to the authorities which are keenest to spend it.
In fact. London got about the same size slice of the national cake this year as last year. Also, recognising as we do that local authorities are the best judges of local needs, we are giving them from next year freedom to spend half the money they receive from sales of land and houses, on top of their allocations, and much greater freedom to transfer resources from one service to another when in their judgment this is justified.
Let me give the House two figures—first, of underspend. In the year 1977 –78, £836 million was allocated to the Greater London area. Only £789 million was spent. In the year 1978 –79, £824 million was allocated; only £727 million was spent. Hardly, when based upon the requirements put forward by local authorities, can it then be said that they were able to justify their requirements. What they did was to ask for more than they could spend, and other parts had to suffer.
The Greater London Council and its particular problems were mentioned. I deeply regret that the council has had to suspend its home loans scheme. I know that that is a disappointment to a substantial number of would-be house buyers. It must have been a difficult decision for the GLC, in view of its outstanding commitment to promoting home ownership, but this is, alas, as the GLC recognises, an unfortunate consequence of the reductions in allocations enforced by the national economic conditions. I regret that at present I cannot consider special cases from any authority seeking more money. All that I can say is that I have well in mind the GLC's desire to restart its loan scheme as soon as it can.
Hon. Members have suggested that recent measures will increase the difficulties facing Londoners who want to move, either to be nearer a job or for other personal reasons. I suggest that the increase in owner-occupation and the maintenance of a healthy private rented sector will make life easier, not harder, for those who need to move and who sometimes face bureaucratic obstacles to mobility in the public sector and in particular the public rented sector.
Nor do I think, and nor do most people with practical experience, that it is as difficult for public sector tenants to move as is sometimes suggested. I am satisfied, though I should welcome any further evidence that the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch can give me, that the inter-borough nomination scheme is handling an increasing number of moves. The GLC is continuing to play an important role in facilitating mobility in its own stock and—what must not be forgotten—through nomination rights to stock that it has transferred to the boroughs. We are keen to encourage mobility schemes and are taking powers in the Housing Bill, which we shall be discussing later today, to give those schemes financial assistance.
Of course, London has a continuing housing problem. There is still need for a large programme of public investment—and it remains enormous by international standards. We need to improve housing conditions and to provide access to decent housing for those who cannot buy it in the market. But public expenditure is not a universal panacea, and it is an


unhealthy situation that in some parts of London housing is virtually obtainable only through the local authority as landlord.
We are committed to directing public money where it is most needed, but we are also committed to maximising tenure choice, giving individuals an incentive to repair and improve their homes. Our seven-point plan for low-cost home ownership and the other measures in the Housing Bill may be national incentives, but they are particularly relevant to London, with its continuing high pressure of demand and its ageing housing stock.
We were elected with a clear mandate—no one disputes this, least of all the right hon. Lady who sat for Hertford and Stevenage, Mrs. Shirley Williams—to reverse our predecessors' policy on council house sales, and we have done this. There is ample evidence that many council tenants in London want to buy their own homes. As for the charge that only the best houses will be sold, the evidence so far is limited, but it does not support that view, and, with the substantial discounts available, there will be a strong incentive for tenants to buy on council estates of all sorts. Certainly in my own constituency I have had numerous requests to buy flats in tower blocks, requests which my prejudiced council has rejected.
This debate has been of value, for a wide variety of reasons. Most of all, perhaps, it has been of value in showing the average Londoner the difference between the two parties. There is a wide difference. On the Government Benches there is the party that puts the interests of the nation and the tenant first. On the Opposition Benches is a party that puts blind political dogma first and flies in the face of economic reality.
I acquit the hon. Member for Edmonton, but most of his hon. Friends still believe that one can spend one's way out of any problem by printing more and more money, by having more and more staff, by having more and more public housing, and by having less and less ownership and less and less private renting. We reject that philosophy, as the British public rejected it when they had their chance at the last general election.

Orders of the Day — MINISTERIAL PATRONAGE

Mr. Bruce George: I apologise to the Minister of State for dragging him from his bed at six o'clock in the morning to reply to my debate on ministerial patronage. Witnessing the dawn appearing over the Thames is much less attractive than writers and artists sometimes portray it. The Minister, as he is a beneficiary of the political patronage of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as well as, no doubt, a dispenser of patronage, is uniquely qualified to respond to the debate and I eagerly await his reply.
I have the honour to represent one of the three Walsall constituencies. We do not often intrude into the national news, but when we do, unfortunately, it is seldom to our advantage. Recent events have certainly confirmed that assessment. The British press, which certainly knows a thing or two about nepotism and patronage, and the Conservative Party, which invented and subsequently perfected it, have expressed indignation at the remarks by a Walsall council chairman, and his thoughts on appointments. If the chairman had asked my advice, which he did not, I would certainly have cautioned him as to the likely response that his statement would receive. In some ways the admonitions of the press and the Conservative Party have been rather hypocritical.
Last Tuesday the Prime Minister, in response to a gentle question, said:
I have consistently stood up for people on the basis of merit and merit alone."—[Official Report, 29 July 1980; Vol. 989, c. 1285.]
I asked the Prime Minister whether she could put her hand on heart and admit that she had never advanced or retarded a career on the basis of politics.
What I want to do in this short debate is to explore more carefully the Prime Minister's assessment that merit is the sole criterion in public appointments. In his book, written 18 years ago, on patronage in British government, Peter Richards identified four basic methods of choosing people to occupy positions within the public domain. He talked of chance, heredity, competition and patronage. Patronage is a widespread feature of our


society. Certainly it is no monopoly of this Government. It goes back many centuries in our history. One of the great criticisms one can make of appointments made by patronage is that those who are appointed are rarely accountable, and the posts filled by patronage are often invidious in that the people chosen, even if they are the best people for the jobs, are usually chosen as a result of some secretive process. If the best people are being chosen by the best method I believe that the process should be much more open to public scrutiny.
The patronage of the monarch has, thankfully, receded over the centuries. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, with the huge growth in the machinery of public administration, there has developed a new form of patronage, that of the Prime Minister and the departmental Ministers. The late Maurice Edelman called it "the patronage explosion". With the development of quangos there are now more and more appointments that are being made by Ministers. At a count in 1978 it was said that there were 5,000 positions on over 1,000 bodies involving ministerial patronage. If we include part-time posts, that figure could be as high as 20,000.
In his evidence to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee Mr. Charkham, head of the Civil Service Department's public service appointments unit, confirmed that the figure was 20,000. That patronage is an incredible element in British government and an indication of the magnitude of the patronage available to a Prime Minister and individual Ministers.
The Prime Minister—not just the present one—is the fount, or trough, dependent on one's view, of patronage. I am not talking about ministerial patronage or parliamentary patronage. Prime Ministers for centuries have advanced their political cronies, and those who share their political ideologies. That is not the object of my criticism. But the present Prime Minister, despite the occasional rhetoric claiming to support merit, am not talking about ministerial patronage has extended it. The Prime Minister seems keen to extend patronage. By reintroducing political honours for party workers, and by not refusing to close the door permanently on the hereditary

principle in the House of Lords she is taking a retrograde step.
I shall briefly examine some of the powers of the Prime Minister in the context of political appointments. Bearing in mind what the Prime Minister said at Question Time on the Walsall situation deploring political patronage I refer to an article in The Times of 17 June 1978 where the author, Peter Hennessy, writes:
As part of the shadow cabinet's review of state intervention and patronage, Sir Anthony Royle Conservative MP for Richmond-upon-Thames, and a former junior minister … is drawing up a list of 'the good and the great'—individuals sympathetic to the Tory cause whom Mrs. Thatcher might appoint to royal commissions, committees of inquiry and the boards of nationalised industries on a Conservative return to power.
The list is kept in Conservative Central Office … where Sir Anthony has a small staff to assist in its completion. The Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, began her search for suitable individuals in 1976. The article said that that was routine for Conservative parties when in opposition. That is a clear case of a list being kept of worthies sympathetic to the Conservative Party and ready to be placed in positions of influence upon the Conservatives coming into office. To argue, therefore, that merit is the sole criterion for appointments is somewhat dubious and to have a staff compiling the list is an indication and proof of how dubious that process is.
I ask the Minister whether he has seen that list and how many individuals on it have been transferred to the list in his Department. How many people on that list have subsequently secured office in the Government or attached to the Government? The Minister's own Department, the Civil Service, has long cherished the principle of appointment by merit and we tend to despise the American spoils system.
Once again returning to The Time—not an unimpeachable source but a highly reputable one—we discover that here is a development that should cause anxiety to the Minister and to many people in the House. The view is expressed that, perhaps, the spoils system is slowly being introduced into this country. The Times states that the Prime Minister
… is taking a much more serious interest in appointments at permanent secretary and deputy secretary level.


The article says that there is no idea of a political witch hunt but that, nevertheless
'… a senior official with 'notoriously Keynesian' views stands scant chance of promotion into the two highest grades in any of the economic ministries.
That is a form of political patronage. It means placing people in political office, or not, because of their political views. If that were extended I would regard it as highly reprehensible.
The Prime Minister and Prime Ministers before her have had enormous powers of patronage in ecclesiastical affairs. I regard this form of patronage as the most repugnant that can be exercised by a politician. I agree that the worst excesses of the past have been removed, but the principle of politicians making religious appointments remains and is deeply repugnant.
In the Civil Service Yearbook is listed one Mr. Colin Peterson, secretary for ecclesiastical patronage. He has an assistant, a Brigadier G. C. Curtis OBE. The address of their office is No. 10 Downing Street. Many who have read Trollope's Barchester Towers will recall that as the Bishop of Barchester lay dying his son wanted to replace him and was desperately anxious for the Government to nominate him to the post. Unfortunately, the Government were dying, and it was a race as to who died first. The old man died, the Government died minutes later, and the poor son never secured his father's post.
That may have been fiction, but it is an indication of the depths to which political patronage has dropped. How many appointments are made by the Prime Minister? What part does the right hon. Lady play in that process? Is the role a burdensome one? It was certainly burdensome for Lord Melbourne who remarked
Damn it, another bishop dead.
and for Lord Salisbury who said
I declare they die to spite me.
I should like to see the Government getting completely out of the business of interfering in religious appointments. Dissatisfaction with the patronage exercised by the Prime Minister is longstanding in the Church of England. What moral right did Lloyd George have to make religious appointments? There could be a Prime

Minister who was not Church of England and whose background hardly befitted him to interfere in ecclesiastical appointments.
My criticism, too, is more of the way in which interference is expressed than of the choices made. I feel that one day this whole business can blow up in somebody's face.
Few countries are as status and title conscious as the British, and the Prime Minister has ample opportunity to cater for such urges and aspirations.
I shall not dwell at length on the honours system. Society ought to honour those who perform meritorious service for the community, but the honours are often going to the wrong people. The system of automatic honours for certain categories of civil servants, military men and contributors to party funds or people who have served their political parties has, in my view, been discredited and should be reformed.
It may be a source of innocent merriment for some, but I should like there to be a whole revision of the honours system. The Prime Minister gets himself or her-self involved in areas which should remain sacrosanct to others. I see that the Prime Minister even has a hand in the appointment of regius professors of history at Oxford university. While Michael Howard is eminently qualified as an historian, I do not think that the Crown has any right to interfere in academic affairs.
We have heard so much in the past about the list of the "great and the good". Peter Hennessy, The Times Whitehall correspondent, has argued that as so many such people play such a prominent part in government we have in a way been ruled by the "great and the good" for decades. This is the list of worthies drawn up now by the public appointments unit of the Civil Service Department. Fortunately, it has tried to broaden the list, although I should like to see a breakdown of it in terms of age, sex, social class, ethnic background and region of origin.
I believe that Mr. Clarkham promised the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service that they would publish some information. I should like to see whether the list is as I fear—much too middle aged or elderly, middle class, London oriented, virtually all white and too generalist in


background. Samuel Johnson said of generalists:
A man may be so much of everything he is nothing of anything".
The list should be published. In his "Anatomy of Britain Today"—1971—Anthony Sampson says that the list is:
a secret tome which is kept listing everyone who has the right qualifications of worthiness, soundness and discretion".
The earlier reforms unfortunately came to nought. I want to see the unit's list widened to draw the maximum talent from all sections of the community into the public service. I want to get the names out of the secret filing cabinets at Old Admiralty building and into the public domain. What we want from these appointments is not conformity but originality and creativity. I do not believe that those who appear in "Who's Who" necessarily have a monopoly of such qualifications.
Bernard Donoghue, former head of the policy analysis unit attached to the Prime Minister, said that Ministers were usually given
just three names for a job, two of whom were unsuitable, the other being the person the department wanted".
He argues that these appointments should be advertised, open and clearly made on merit. I hope that we shall see that in the not too distant future.
Ministerial patronage is enormous. With the growth of quangos it has become even larger. Some of the criticisms of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) attack quangos per se. However, they perform a useful and in most cases an essential function, although I should like to see more concentration on the role of Ministers in filling such positions. Patronage;s not only positive in making appointments. It is also possible to dismiss people. In recent months there have been numerous instances of Ministers exercising almost reverse patronage, such as sweeping out members of the National Enterprise Board. The Sunday Telegraph said:
The Cabinets strong man, namely, Mar garet Thatcher, has long been intent on taming the National Enterprise Board and tamed it has been.
The NEB's views were not shared by the Secretary of State.
We have heard a great deal about the members of the Commission for Racial

Equality who were booted out. Four of the five whose terms were not renewed were black. Many regard the incident as sordid and feel that the Government made major mistakes. It is clearly an indication of political patronage.
I shall not go into the details of appointments in the judicial sphere, but if ever there was a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma it is the appointment of justices of the peace. Is the bench truly representative? Is it too dominated by political parties? Is it still essentially middle class, middle aged, white and Conservative? There have been attempts to advertise. I should like to know how successful reforms have been? It is important to diversify the bench and amend the way that it operates.
It is Utopian to hope that this or any Prime Minister will sweep the power of patronage away, even slowly. By definition, it confers enormous power on a Prime Minister. Patronage is an emotive word. It is associated in the minds of the public with a variety of abuses, which are not of the essence of patronage but merely its probably consequences unless measures are taken to avoid its sad and evil effects.
As for remedies, we need to reduce the areas of patronage. We need to increase the electoral element. I believe that Britain has a skin-deep democracy based on a thin veneer of elected representatives here and in town halls. Compared with many other democratic countries, we have the lowest number of electable individuals per hundred thousand population. This should be remedied. Far too many jobs now filled by patronage, by ministerial whim, could be filled by election with the people appointed being accountable. We need to open up to public scrutiny the list of the great and the good and to broaden its membership, making it less elitist.
One suggestion has been made by the national executive committee of the Labour Party. Not every piece of paper emanating from that source is regarded universally as having a great deal of sense, but I think such papers contain more sense than is normally attributed to it. In one of its recent statements on reforming the appointments system, the NEC suggested advertising posts. In its report it said that some jobs are clearly


more important than others, but when appointments to key positions are made, it would like the Minister's nominee to be
required to appear before the appropriate Select Committee of the House of Commons. This Committee would have the opportunity to cross-examine the proposed appointee and could repeat its opinion on his suitability to the House of Commons and the public. The considered opinion of a Select Committee could not be lightly ignored by the Minister.
The late Maurice Edelman advocated something like this five years ago when he urged a public service commission to do the job of scrutinising, investigating and approving.
We are living in the patronage society. Senior politicians and those who have prospered within the system can see little reason to change it, but there are those who have been excluded from this system who are less than satisfied.
I believe that the last words should go to Professor Richards who, in his book "Patronage in Government", said:
Unfettered patronage is a menace to democracy. Parliament should be working to ensure that those with powers of appointment do not have full licence to allocate jobs to their friends and supporters.
Those are strong but true words.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for his kind personal remarks at the beginning of his speech. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Gentleman address the House, but it is perhaps less of a pleasure at 6 o'clock in the morning than at other times. Even so, the hon. Gentleman has made an interesting speech which I shall want to study, as will others.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not find it offensive if I say that the idea of the hon. Member for Walsall, South addressing the House on the abuses of patronage is a little surprising—some might say presumptuous—at the present time. I shall come back to that subject later in my remarks.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will find a great deal of what I have to say unsatisfactory, because he has raised a host of matters which are outside not only my ministerial responsibilities but the responsibility of any Minister.
Fond as I am of the novels of Trollope, I cannot stand at this Dispatch Box tonight and answer for the defects of nineteenth century ecclesiastical patronage which the hon. Gentleman raised. In the novel described by the hon. Gentleman, clearly the wrong choice was made. I think that the old bishop's son would have been the better choice. Be that as it may, I can have no responsibility for either ecclesiastical patronage or patronage over a wide area. In so far as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has a general oversight of this area, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to take those matters up with her.
As to my own patronage, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is of the most minimal kind. The Government Hospitality Committee for the purchase of wine is perhaps the major one. There are also the Civil Service College Advisory Council, the Central Committee on Awards, the Civil Service Appeal Board and the Civil Service Medical Appeal Board. Therefore, my own personal patronage is somewhat limited. Nevertheless, I should like to deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, in so far as they deal with my general responsibilities as a Minister in the Civil Service Department.
There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman said about the amount of patronage. Surely, therefore, he must agree with what the Government have been trying to do in the past year—for example, to reduce the number of quangos. The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland), who did a public service in drawing to the attention of the House the large numbers of quangos that existed. That showed just how wide was the area of advisory and executive bodies to which Ministers made appointments. My hon. Friend has shown what a wide area existed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend announced earlier this year a wide-ranging review of all quangos and the abolition of a large number of quangos to which Ministers made appointments.
It is obviously right to have certain areas in which Ministers can make executive appointments or have advisory bodies to help them in the exercise of their duties, but I think that the matter had


got completely out of hand. I believe that it was right to reduce the number of quangos. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that that was an important point.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the list of public appointments. Perhaps I can make it clear that the responsibility for making appointments to public bodies rests with the Minister who is concerned with the power of appointment to the body in question. The responsibilities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as Minister for the Civil Service, are confined to the small number of cases in which she makes appointments in that capacity. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman has any particular points about individual appointments, he should take them up with the Ministers responsible for the various public bodies, and he will know which Ministers are responsible for making appointments to those public bodies.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the public appointments unit in the Civil Service Department. Of course I am responsible to this House and to my right hon. Friend for the operation of that unit within the Department. That unit does not make any appointments whatsoever. All that it does is to produce a list. Appointments are, and remain, the responsibility of the Minister in charge of the relevant Department. All that the unit does is to provide a central service which departmental Ministers are free to use or not as they choose. If they use the unit and invite it to put forward names, they are not bound to follow its advice. Even if they appoint someone suggested by the public appointments unit, the decision is theirs.
The view has always been taken that it would not be right to publish the actual list of the so-called great and good because it would cause disappointment to many people who think that they are on the list but are not. It would probably cause astonishment to some people to find that they were on the list without having the faintest idea that they were on it.
All that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he wants to suggest names

for inclusion on that list, I shall be delighted to ensure that they are carefully considered. Evidence has been given to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee about the list. It has been suggested by some people that it is drawn from too narrow a section of the public. The list is always capable of improvement and expansion, and I would welcome suggestions from the hon. Gentleman of suitable people to be put on the list. Indeed, I would welcome that from any hon. Member or from any member of the public. If they want to suggest the names of people who would be valuable in the public interest, I shall ensure that they are carefully considered. I would welcome new names. I seek new names.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the unit takes no account whatever of political affiliation when adding names to the list. In most cases, it has not the faintest idea of the political affiliations of those concerned. But, however good the list may be, it will always be the responsibility of departmental Ministers to decide what use they make of the list and who should be appointed to the bodies for which they have responsibility.
I urge the hon. Member to give us some more names. He says that there are not enough young people or people from outside London and not enough people from the ethnic minorities. All that may be true, and we would welcome the names of good people who can serve the public interest in the future. I urge the hon. Gentleman and others to provide us with new names. They will be most carefully considered.
If I understand aright the main thrust of the hon. Member's interesting speech—to which it is difficult at this hour to give the full study that it deserves—he is making some defence of the practice in his own town, on the ground that it may be bad enough, but others are equally bad. I utterly refute that defence. I utterly deplore—as, I feel sure, would most hon. Members—the action reported to have been taken by the Walsall borough council to make jobs in the public service dependent upon the political leanings of individuals. I think that most hon. Members, even those who are in general sympathy with the national executive committee of the


Labour Party, would agree that such action represents a gross abuse of power and is one which should be widely condemned.
The hon. Member will agree that our public services are built upon a tradition of strict political impartiality. That tradition is the great strength of those services. The first loyalty of those who work within the public services is to the elected representatives who direct them, irrespective of political persuasion. The permanent servants of the Government set service to the public above service to a party. I believe that to be a fundamental principle of British public life. Were it to be broken in central Government, that would be a disaster. It is also a considerable disaster when it is broken in local government.
The principles of public service have been built upon centuries of experience. They are the envy of most countries in the world. Under those principles, an elected representative can look to a body of experience in the public service on coming into power and know that those who are his officials, whether in local or central Government, will serve him impartially and energetically. That is fundamental to our democratic system. Any hint of political patronage in this area runs the risk of undermining those principles in a very dangerous way. The work of our public servants must stand or fall on its merits. The quality of their work, their dedication and their efforts must be the determinant of their success, whether that success is to get a job, keep a job or advance within a job. If political allegiance should gain ascendancy over allegiance to the elected Government in Westminster, or if political allegiance should gain ascendancy over allegiance to the impartial views of those working in local government, our public services would rapidly become degraded.
The hon. Member referred in his opening remarks to Trollope. Let me take him back to the time of Trollope and the terrible position that existed in the public services before the Northcote Trevelyan report in 1853, when patronage really was rife. I am sure that no one in the House wants to go back to a situation where the political views of those who serve us as officials, whether in local or central Government, should be the deter-

mining factor of their promotion or their appointment.
I think that the House must say that, unless there has been a very great misreporting—and I do not think there has been—the actions of Walsall borough council are, frankly, a first step in that direction. They not only bring that council into disrepute but run the risk of bringing our public servants into disrepute. Gross political patronage of that sort does a disservice to the public, who have a right to the best and most impartial treatment from those who serve them.
The hon. Gentleman has raised a host of important issues about patronage. I shall want to read them and draw them to the attention of my colleagues when we have time to study them at a more reasonable hour of the day.
I passionately believe in both central and local government. We are fortunate to have inherited a system of impartiality. The fact that none of us knows in our Departments whether an individual civil servant is a supporter or opponent of the Government of the day in his private vote in the ballot box is of great public importance and of great strength to our country. The same should be true of local government.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to Walsall and make the speech that he has delivered to the House to the borough council. I hope that he will tell it that it should adopt the same high standards that he is urging upon the House. If he does that, he will have done a service to those who have sent him to this place as their elected representative and he will stop the borough council from committing what I believe would be a grave error and something that if repeated would have disastrous effects on the system of local government. It would be a return to the worst elements of patronage of the nineteenth century.
I urge the hon. Gentleman not only to make speeches in this Chamber but to return to Walsall after 8 August and make a few speeches there. Let him tell the council to carry out the excellent practices that he is recommending to us. One day I shall go to Walsall and make a speech to him along the lines of the one that he made to me. When that is done, we shall get along even better than


at present and those in Walsall and in the House of Commons—

Mr. George: rose—

Mr. Channon: —will have benefited from his remarks.

Orders of the Day — POLARIS REPLACEMENT

Mr. A. J. Beith: This may seem a strange hour to launch a debate on so major a subject as the replacement of Polaris by Trident. It is a reflection on the strange procedures of this place that this is the only opportunity that we have to debate such a major decision before the House rises for a recess of several months.
There would not have been a debate on this issue if my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Liberal Bench had not insisted through this procedure that there should be one. We are glad that the Secretary of State for Defence has made himself available for the debate and that he intends to take part in it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has many pressing commitments, and we genuinely welcome his presence in the Chamber at this hour. We equally welcome the presence of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who is having to compete with the presence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) on the Opposition Front Bench.
We seem to be the only Opposition on this issue. I am sure that there would have been a debate much earlier if the Labour Party had wanted to discuss Trident. I suspect that we are in for another occasion when the Labour Front Bench is silent. The official Opposition do not want anything said on the matter. It suits both the Government and the Opposition to say as little as possible about Trident for as long as possible.
I make no claim to be an expert on the technicalities of the Trident missile. I shall not be entering into much detail on its specific qualities. However, I am entitled—it is an entitlement that spreads throughout the country—to give a view on the strategic assumption that underlies its purchase and the prospects of its use.
The major decision to continue a British independent nuclear deterrent by substantial expenditure on the purchase of the Trident missile has been taken without any parliamentary decision or debate and in advance of the report of the Select Committee on defence, which is considering what weapon we should have if we retain an independent deterrent. I gather that it was taken in the absence of any full Cabinet discussion on the issue. It is an extraordinary way to take so major and crucial a decision.
I refer to what I think is a misleading statement at the beginning of the otherwise useful document which the Defence Council has produced and the Government have published. That document, the "Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force", begins:
The basic policy case for Britain's continuing to contribute to NATO an independent strategic nuclear force was explained by the Secretary of State for Defence on 24 January 1980 to the House of Commons".
So far, the account is true. The statement continues:
which after debate backed the Government's policy by 308 votes to 52.
At first, I wondered when a motion had been tabled on the purchase of Trident or on the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent. The debate on nuclear policy was the only debate to take place in the last 15 years. However, it took place on a motion that the House should adjourn. The dramatic verdict of 308 votes to 52 was not the result of a motion that had specified particular features of defence policy. The debate had been a wide-ranging one about nuclear weapons.
When he wound up the debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army said:
The debate has concentrated on NATO's plans to modernise its theatre nuclear force—the NATO agreement of 12 December. It has also concentrated on the steps that must be taken to ensure the continuing effectiveness of Britain's nuclear deterrent … We shall be voting tonight in support of NATO and of Britain's nuclear deterrent."—[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 781–82.]
The Under-Secretary simply expressed his assumption about the reason for the Division. Some hon. Members may have been voting about whether to go home. He made clear that the vote was on two issues—namely, the modernisation of NATO theatre nuclear forces and the separate issue of whether to continue


with an independent deterrent. Other speeches in that debate make clear that some hon. Members were discussing the general point of whether the West should be equipped with nuclear weapons. Some of my hon. Friends felt, as I did, that to go into the other Lobby would be to challenge not only the independent deterrent but cruise missiles, the American deterrent deployed in the service of NATO, and the general deployment of nuclear weapons by the West.
Anybody who thought that the debate represented a specific endorsement of the decision to maintain an independent nuclear deterrent or to purchase Trident must have been seriously misled. I hope that the Secretary of State will not seek to rest his case on that. It was wrong to include the statement in the document as if it endorsed the Government's policy.
This debate is not about the Western deterrent or about the American deterrent that is deployed in the service of NATO. It is concerned with whether Britain should retain an independent nuclear deterrent by purchasing Trident. It is an extremely expensive undertaking, despite the relatively favourable terms that have been concluded with the United States of America about the purchase of the Trident components. It represents an addition to the number of nuclear arms in the world. We must examine carefully any addition to that stockpile. If arguments about the retention of the deterrent have some validity for us, they will also have some validity for other nations. Those nations may argue that they should be in possession of a similar capability. If we are to indulge in the expense and destabilising extension of nuclear power in the world, there must be an overriding reason.
The defence of the Western democracies against the undoubted and demonstrated expansionism of the USSR is based on NATO and the American commitment to it. Without that, our defence strategy would fail. I support that commitment to NATO, and so does the Liberal Party. If we wish to safeguard our freedom, we must co-operate with our allies and indicate clearly that the Soviet Union strikes against the Western democracies at its peril.
Why does Britain need to go it alone, with a capacity that is separate from that

of the Western Alliance? Why do we need to launch a nuclear retaliation on the USSR? It would not be final for the USSR, because even with this weapon system the scale of retaliation would not destroy it. It certainly would not destroy the USSR's ability to strike at us. We cannot destroy its capacity to destroy us.
I agree with what the Secretary of State has often said—that deterrence is about the others side's perceptions and calculations; it is about what the Soviet Union calculates is in its interest. Some of its calculations will be more ruthless and callous than ours. That is why I say, horrifying though it is, that we do not have the capability to destroy the Soviet Union, even if we are in possession of Trident. The Soviet Union is capable of calculating that the damage that we can inflict upon it might be tolerable in certain circumstances. The calculations that the aggressor might make could be more callous than ours.
If we are to equip ourselves with the power to go it alone, within limited constraints, on what do we base that desire? The supposition must be that the United States would hold back from responding to a Soviet nuclear threat to Europe. In spite of the suicidal potential for America of involvement in any nuclear conflict, I believe that the American deterrent would have to be deployed against such a threat in America's direct interest. It is crucial to the Western defence system that America accepts that; and there is ample evidence that American leaders, present and potential, accept it.
If the Americans respond or show themselves ready to respond, our strategic deterrent is unnecessary. If we contemplate circumstances in which the Americans would not respond to a Soviet strategic nuclear threat to the European democracies, we must assume that our alliance with America has already reached crumbling point. Our alliance with the rest of Europe would already be threatened and our relations with Powers such as West Germany would be threatened with a totally new situation.
If America were not prepared to defend West Germany. West Germany would view our behaviour differently. It would have to look for new ways to survive. It might even have to look for accommodations with the Soviet bloc. I do


not envisage that situation, but if I imagine it for the purposes of understanding why we should have a nuclear deterrent of our own I can suppose only that the Western Alliance would have reached crumbling point before we could contemplate using such a deterrent.
If that were the situation, the United States would have probably already taken steps to prevent our using Trident, not least by drying up supplies of missiles and spares and by indirect means which would influence the locking in of Britain to the American deterrent. The more one thinks about that possibility, the more it seems that one is reduced to Domesday and Dr. Strangelove notions. Lord Carver expressed that more effectively in a debate in another place.
One can imagine ludicrous and frightening situations such as differences of interpretation of what the computers reveal about Soviet intentions. Britain might interpret the information as an indication of a Soviet nuclear strike. The Americans might say "We do not believe it. We think that it is a mistake and we are not prepared to deploy our nuclear deterrent." Could one imagine Britain saying "We think that it is genuine and we shall retaliate"?
If the British deterrent is not useful or necessary against the Soviet strategic nuclear threat—and I suggest that it is not—is it envisaged that Britain would use it against a conventional attack by the Soviet Union when the United States was not prepared to go all the way with us and when we would be forced to go it alone? It is incredible, not just to hon. Members but to the Russians.
I come back to the point that the Secretary of State has often made about the Russian perception of what we would do. I believe that the Russians know what pressures we should be under if we contemplated a strategic nuclear retaliation to a conventional attack mounted by them on us or any of our allies. They know what an impossible commitment it would be for Britain to launch a nuclear war in order to resist a conventional attack.
Therefore, I believe that the Russians are much more likely to strike by conventional means, preferably beginning in a NATO country in which there is some

internal disorder or instability upon which they can latch and around which they can erect the sort of nonsensical justification that they advanced for their invasion of Afghanistan—saying that they had been invited in to bring about law and order, and promptly shooting the leader who was supposed to have invited them in. The whole Russian propaganda armoury looks ludicrous to us, but we must not forget that it is on internal disorder and instability in a particular country that the Russians are likely to launch not a nuclear but a conventional attack.
That could happen in a country such as West Germany in some future circumstances. It could happen in a non-NATO country the stability of which we were concerned about. It could happen in Iran or in a place such as Finland if she began to detach herself from the heavy degree of dependence on maintaining Soviet respect and connivance.
In any of those circumstances, the threat would be a conventional one. What use would Trident be then? It is no deterrent to an adventurist Power that is fully aware of the limitation that we would face in trying to deploy strategic nuclear weapons against a conventional attack.
Not only that, but by that time our possession of Trident could have reduced our capacity to resist that sort of conventional attack—the capacity of our Army, Navy and Air Force to defend us, through NATO or directly. In equipment, numbers or both, there has to be a price paid for Trident. There is almost no analyst or commentator, even among those who are sympathetic to the idea of retaining a British nuclear deterrent, who does not doubt strongly the Government's contention that there will be no price to be paid in our equipment budget and in our conventional weaponry for the purchase of Trident.
Whether it is any of the candidates already suggested, such as the Jaguar aircraft or the Hunter submarines—which may be affected by the building of submarines for Trident—it is widely believed that the Trident project will represent a threat to the equipment of our forces.
Something approaching £1 billion a year, at present prices, in the mid-1980s will have to come from somewhere. On the Government's own admission, it represents at least 8 per cent. of the defence


equipment budget. Either our conventional forces will be weakened or, after several years of increasing defence spending by 3 per cent. a year according to the NATO agreement—something which Liberals sought to secure from the previous Government—we shall add another 5 per cent. a year in the peak years of Trident, at the expense of health, welfare, education and aid budgets.
That money has to come from somewhere. If it comes out of the defence budget, it must be at the expense of conventional forces, and if the equipping of those forces is not affected the money is bound to come out of other desirable and, in some cases, priority expenditure. For that price, we shall be vulnerable to an enemy which knows the restraints on our pressing the button and which will take care to ensure that its incursions are within the limits that make it impossible for us to retaliate in that way.
Since it is impossible to construct a scenario for our use of the weapons, one is forced to conclude that they exist for the purposes of political and national prestige. Is it to persuade the Americans to take us seriously that we have to equip ourselves with the weapon? Clearly, it is no more a threat to the Americans than it is to the Russians for us to have in our possession a weapon for which we are dependent on the Americans and on the use of which there are such overriding constraints.
A more accurate explanation, I believe, is that the Secretary of State and the Government are following in the steps of the late Aneurin Bevan, who, on behalf of the Labour leadership, spoke of his fear of going naked into the conference chamber. That was his defence of the British independent nuclear deterrent. The classic defence of the independent nuclear deterrent is that it gives us a standing and enables us to be taken more seriously.
We are no longer, in economic terms, a great Power. We began to travel the road away from that position even when Nye Bevan made his comment. We are much further away now. We cannot afford to buy seats at summits at the sort of cost that is involved, especially when the price of so doing may be an undermining of the defence that we shall most need—the ability to resist, and to

help NATO to resist, the incursions that the Soviet Union knows that it can make underneath the useless umbrella that I believe Trident will prove to be for Britain's defence.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) for initiating the debate. I wish to make only a brief intervention. I do so because, as I have expressed on previous occasions, I am profoundly disturbed by the Government's decision to replace Polaris with Trident. An increasing number of people are frightened at the way the militarists rely more on nuclear weapons as a deterrent. As the hon. Gentleman has remarked, the Trident system is merely a prestige symbol for this Government and this country.
The fiction of the independent nuclear deterrent is manifestly absurd. There is no reasonable circumstances in which the United Kingdom would launch a nuclear war on its own, separate and apart from the United States and separate and apart from NATO. If a war comes, it is likely to be brought about because of the appalling stockpile of nuclear weapons that exists in the world. That would have dreadful results for all.
The possession of Trident deters no country from beginning, or being involved n, a conventional war. It is an expensive embellishment of the defence of the United Kingdom. The colossal sums spent on Trident could, with everlasting advantage, be used for the great social problems that exist in this country. They could be used with great advantage to stop the de-industrialisation of our nation. They could certainly be used, with the gratitude of future generations, to end the death from starvation of thousands upon thousands of babies and children throughout the world. Future generations will look back and wonder how this country could embark on the replacement of Polaris with Trident.
I hope that more hon. Members and more people outside the House will consider the dramatic changes that could be wrought with the millions of pounds that will be spent on the replacement of Polaris. It is a terrible blunder by the Government. An example could be set


to all the nuclear Powers if the Government abandoned this dangerous independent nuclear deterrent. Other countries that wish to belong to the nuclear club would be encouraged to say to themselves that if Britain abandoned Trident they should follow that lead, spend money on peaceful purposes and abandon the evil of the nuclear deterrent.
Although that is all I say at this early hour, I feel very strongly about this subject. I hope that the nation will be aroused to the need to abandon Trident as a replacement for Polaris.

Mr. Stephen Ross: We boast of parliamentary democracy, but when political parties find the going difficult they do not exactly excel in the art. The previous Administration cannot have been right to embark on a £1 billion modernisation programme for Polaris, code-named Chevaline, without so much as a nod in the direction of the Palace of Westminster. I give the Secretary of State credit for the fact that he told us all about it in the debate earlier this year.

Mr. Kilfedder: His party started it.

Mr. Ross: I think that there is an argument that it goes back even further than that, to the previous Labour Administration.
Now, the decision has been taken about Trident, at a cost of £5 billion and probably more, with no debate or vote upon the various options. They came afterwards, in an admittedly well-argued document—Cmnd. 1823—but the deal had already been agreed in an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States.
The Liberal Party has consistenly opposed the concept of the independent nuclear deterrent, and I support that stance, but in a major decision of this sort should not the comparisons between the various systems and their costs at least have been thrown open to debate in this place? I also believe that opposition to the independent nuclear deterrent is now more widely shared than ever before, and at fairly high military levels. That is another reason why we should have debated it separately and voted upon it.
As I have tried to make clear in previous defence debates, I fully support the NATO decision to replace its outdated theatre nuclear weapons—a decision, I accept, largely forced upon the Western European countries, the United States and Canada by the ever-increasing numbers of SS20s deployed by the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries.
I also accept the need for the United Kingdom to share to the full in the implementation of that decision, which must mean the stationing of cruise missiles on our soil. Unless the members of NATO continue to work in harmony and are clearly seen to do so, the whole strategy of deterrence upon which the Alliance is based will be lost. We would then be heading for a major confrontation. The Secretary of State is absolutely right on that, and I have stood firm on it, despite a fair amount of correspondence from various parts of the country.
On the role of the independent nuclear deterrent, I have read no more convincing debunking of the concept—my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a good case—than that made by Lord Carver in the debate on 18 December in the House of Lords. That is an argument with which the Secretary of State must be only too familiar but which has never been adequately answered. Although I may not quote from that speech, I draw attention to column 1268 of the debate. It is fair to say that there have been much better, and better argued, debates in the other place than we have had here. A great deal of excellent information has been given and the case has been more deeply argued.
The Secretary of State's decision, announced on 15 July, has, to say the very least, received a pretty mixed press. Whilst I and my colleagues can readily understand the Labour Party's wish to put off its debate on this subject until the autumn, we feel that it should be condemned for not having the courage to challenge the decision before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the argument that he has so far put forward was expressed from the Labour Benches on at least three occasions earlier this year, in the three defence


debates? At that time the Liberal Party was conspicuous by its absence. The fact that there are now five Liberal Members present, at the unprecedented time for them of 7 am, indicates that they are more concerned with promoting themselves than the objective which supposedly is the motive for this debate.

Mr. Ross: I do not remember a major defence debate in which I have not taken part. That was a complete misstatement on the hon. Gentleman's part. I think that I have spoken in every major defence debate in this House since I took on the job.
Many criticisms have been made and ought to be answered. The answers should not be put off. On 20 July, the leading article in The Sunday Times said:
In true military fashion Mr. Pym has first decided that we are to have Trident and new tells us why we are to like it. As an exercise in open government—which is how the White Paper facetiously described itself—this is a mockery.
I accept that the leading article goes on later generally to support the argument, but it also says:
If we had no deterrent we would not now be thinking of laying out huge sums on getting one.
The article also suggests that there should have been a far wider-ranging debate on it before the announcement was made.
At about the same time, there appeared in The Guardian an article by Peter Jenkins. The heading states:
One presumes that few Ministers believe the cant they spout about Polaris being an essential part of the NATO deterrent.
The last part of the article states:
Britain is not economically fit enough to attempt the strategic over-stretch upon which Conservative governments usually insist. As a national deterrent of last-resort the Polaris would have done for a while yet. The Trident is too elaborate and expensive for that purpose; what other purpose it is intended to serve is not clear. Its relevance to NATO is limited and may impair Britain's contribution to the redress of the military balance in Europe where it really matters.
Meanwhile, the government seems to have no policy for arms control and no serious interest in East-West relations. The replacement of the deterrent is supposed to ensure a continuing place at some top table but Mrs. Thatcher is absent from the top table at which Schmidt and Giscard sup. They are more and more the architects of Europe's future. For these reasons it would have been preferable to delay the procurement of the Trident and think deeper.

Perhaps the best leader of all appeared in The Scotsman. It posed some very poignant questions. It said:
You do not need to be a unilateral disarmer to have doubts about Trident. Given acceptance of the need for deterrence, the Defence Minister has as yet failed to make clear how Trident is anything more than marginally more effective as a deterrent than a Cruise missile system, which would cost only half as much as Trident-I".
That of course was the evidence that was given to the Defence Committee of this House.
If Britain was experiencing booming prosperity it would be easy to understand expenditure on Trident as a contribution to the Western Alliance's necessary military programme to counter the frightening growth in size and sophistication of the Soviet arsenal. But these are not the facts in 1980 Britain. A large percentage of the population is worried sick by burgeoning unemployment. When the winter is well set we will begin to read reports of intense hardship suffered by people dependent on social security payments, which have been cut in real terms by this Government. Even people in employment are having difficulties meeting basic commitments to their families because of the high rate of inflation. Meanwhile, they see cuts being made in what hitherto were considered to be essential educational and health services.
MPs also need to ask on our behalf how independent our Trident system will be. Will there be restrictive clauses in the purchasing agreement for the delivery system from the Americans? If so, will the system be truly independent? If not, what's the point of it? Also, how will expenditure on Trident affect our ability to make vital contributions to NATO's conventional forces? Mr. Pym made a smart move in announcing the launch of the £1·3 billion Challenger tank and MCV-80 armoured personnel carrier programme before he revealed the Trident decision. This suggests there is no weakening of Government resolve in the conventional field—but what about its financial ability as the Trident costs mount? And what flexibility does Trident allow the Government should the Soviets seriously enter nuclear arms limitation talks? Is it not the case that it permits less flexibility than a Cruise missile system? Finally—and not merely provocatively—Mr. David Steel's query as to whether Mrs. Thatcher's Government is suffering from delusions of grandeur needs to be echoed. Mr. William Rodgers, Labour's defence spokesman, who has fought bravely the appallingly—and sometimes sinisterly—naive unilateralists in his party, probably summed up the feeling of many people both inside and outside Labour's ranks when he said in Parliament yesterday: 'We believe the case for buying Trident has not been made out and we simply cannot approve it.' Will Mr. Pym now start arguing his case?
In an important article published in The Observer on 27 July, Robert Stephens, the foreign editor, arguing


against Trident and against his own newspaper's leading article, concluded:
Rejecting the British deterrent does not necessarily mean accepting total unilateral nuclear disarmament, that is, the renunciation of all reliance on, or use of, nuclear weapons, whether British or other. It can mean continuing to rely on NATO and the American deterrent, while working to diminish the nuclear war risk through arms control measures, such as the Soviet-American SALT treaties, the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the nuclear test ban, the reduction of forces in Europe and the creation of nuclear-free zones.
The whole-hog unilateralist case is strongest when based on moral grounds—the refusal to take part in a nuclear war that could destroy mankind, if deterrence fails. Its main weakness is its failure to recognise that the only sure way that nuclear war can be prevented is not through simply renouncing the bomb but by preventing war itself. The nuclear genie can now be put back securely into its bottle only if it is corked with an effective international security system to prevent war.
I share those views. The questions that I have put, from the quotations that I have given, should be answered—and should be answered this morning.

Mr. Antony Buck: I am glad that the Liberal Party has chosen to raise this matter, but I look forward to debating it at a more sensible time of the day and in greater depth when we return from the holidays. We have already had what might be described as a preliminary debate, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a powerful speech. He made a case for the British deterrent that neither the Liberal Party nor the Labour Party has countered.
Whether we have a new Lib-Lab pact today, as the Liberal Leader is sitting shoulder-to-shoulder with the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on the Opposition Front Bench, I know not—

Mr. Snape: I think that what the hon. and learned Gentleman describes as a new Lib-Lab pact is due more to the fact that Liberal Party Members are unused to being up at nearly 7.10 am, though members of the Labour Party are quite used to it. Because the Liberals are so unused to it, their leader has to draw attention to himself by sitting next to me.

Mr. Buck: I shall leave the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member

for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) to their squabbles on the Opposition Front Bench. We on the Government Benches can step back from those squabbles and contemplate them with a certain degree of interest and irony at this time of the morning.
The point that was missed by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who initiated the debate at this unearthly hour, and by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), was the cardinal issue whether there should be a further decision-maker in the Western world on the possible use of nuclear weapons. That is something that the Liberal Party does not seem to be able to face. It is spelt out in the Government's document at paragraph 5, in which it is said:
An adversary assessing the consequences of possible aggression in Europe would have to regard a Western defence containing these powerful independent elements"—
which is what we are debating, a separate nuclear force controlled by us—
as a harder one to predict, and a more dangerous one to assail, than one in which nuclear retaliatory power rested in United States' hands alone.
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen will turn their minds to that. It is a powerful argument and one on which the House deserves to have the views of the Liberal Party. It seems absolutely logical that if there is more than one decision-maker with respect to nuclear weapons, peace is more secure.

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that the British independent nuclear deterrent would have a great deal more credibility if the civil population in this country had a far greater degree of protection than currently exists?

Mr. Buck: I take my hon. Friend's point. I know of his considerable expertise on the issue of civil defence, and that is clearly what is in his mind. We are expecting, within the next few days before the House rises, a statement about civil defence which may cause there to be what might be described as a "strengthening of our posture". Undoubtedly, many lives could be saved—if there were to be a nuclear holocaust—by low-cost precautions. They would also show our determination. If there are to be further steps taken, what must be


emphasised is that we are in the deterrence business. That is what we must concentrate on.
I fail to see how any case has been made out by the Liberal spokesmen who have dealt with this theme. I do not see how there can be other than increased security for our country if we have an independent nuclear deterrent, updated as it must be, because Polaris has been going for a long time. While it is still credible and viable and so on, the vessels in which the system is transported are getting rather old now and the time has come to make a decision whether we are to retain the mechanism which has maintained peace in the world, and for us in particular—

Mr. Beith: The hon. and learned Member has posed the question whether an additional decision centre within the Western deterrent is a desirable thing. In my speech, I sought to argue the case that Britain did not effectively have an independent decision centre and that there were too many constraints on our using such weapons. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that the more decision centres there are, the better for purposes of world peace. Does he believe that if more Western Powers had the ability to launch a nuclear war the world would become a more stable place as a consequence?

Mr. Buck: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Anything taken to its logical conclusion becomes ridiculous. What we need are the decision-makers such as we have now, the United States and ourselves. This has been the situation which has kept the peace in Europe for the longest period there has ever been peace in Europe. It seems to me that there should not be any alteration in that status quo.
As to proliferation, I take the hon. Gentleman's point, We are debating serious matters and I would not agree that we want further proliferation of nuclear arms beyond that which has existed since the creation of them at the end of the war.
The case is wholly made out for the course of action that the Government are taking, and I commend them for their courage in having taken this course. Naturally, it is an expensive decision.

But the expense will be spread over a considerable number of years. It will, I believe, give an additional, continuing security to our realm and the various component parts of it in a way which no other decision can. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed spoke of NATO commitment. Of course, the NATO Alliance is of paramount importance. That is stressed in every written word produced by the Government on this issue.
I have had the privilege of going around several NATO countries and I can say that my investigations and talks with our NATO allies lead me to the strong conclusions that they welcome the fact that there has since the war been a British deterrent as well as the French force de frappe and the American nuclear force.
From recent talks that I had in Bonn, it seems that our German allies are keen that we should maintain our independent nuclear deterrent. The French to whom I spoke, less formally and less openly than to the Germans, think that we should have what they describe as a force de frappe. Our NATO allies to whom I have spoken all welcome the decision made by the Government. The Liberals are right to stress the importance of NATO. Those I have spoken to in NATO welcome the fact that there is a British component to the deterrent.
If one thing is predictable about defence matters, it is that they are unpredictable. Therefore, in these circumstances is it not right for us to maintain the reality of a massive power to retaliate? We could go on bandying about the views of Field Marshal Lord Carver. He says one thing in a debate in another place, but, as I have already pointed out, one can match his views with those of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton, who takes a contrary view.
They are both extraordinarily distinguished military men. One pays one's money and one takes one's choice. As a former naval person, it is perhaps not surprising that I should share the views of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Hill-Norton rather than those of Field Marshal Lord Carver. We do not get very far by playing one distinguished Service man off against another. However, I prefer the views of the sailor in this matter.
What it comes to is that it is right that we should be debating this issue, and I think that it would be a good idea if we had a full and sensible debate at a sensible time of day, or early evening, when we come back rested from the summer holiday. I am sure that that will happen.
I commend my right hon. Friend for producing full documentation on the decision that has been made, though it can be argued that there should have been a debate before the decision was made. That is a tenable point of view. But it comes ill from Labour Members to nod agreement with my putting that proposition forward when they indulged in the most extraordinary course, almost one of deception, when they were going ahead with the updating of the Polaris system—Chevaline—and spending hundreds of millions of pounds without there being so much as a breath of it in the House.
I can, perhaps, understand the matters internal to the Labour Party which prompted that decision, for, undoubtedly, had it been announced that the Labour Government were spending huge sums of money updating our Polaris deterrent there would have been grave trouble from "below the Gangway". I can understand why they did it, but it comes ill from the Opposition Front Bench to criticise my right hon. Friend for not having gone in for an even greater degree of open government.

Mr. Snape: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that I at least do not deserve personal stricture concerning what took place during the period of office of the last Labour Government. To return to his main point, does he recall that during the debate on the Royal Air Force I said pretty much the same as he is now saying about the necessity for a Green Paper on the issue of nuclear weapons? Does he also remember that he intervened during my speech, disagreed with me and said that at that time his right hon. Friend had encouraged a debate on the future of nuclear weapons? He cannot have it both ways. If he has such a short memory, he should read his own speeches and interventions before he makes a speech, albeit at 7,20 in the morning.

Mr. Buck: I have not quite understood the hon. Gentleman. I think that

it is he who is a little muddled. He cannot speak from that Dispatch Box and say that he does not speak for the Labour Party or accept the inheritance of its past actions. It is nice to see him as a Front Bench spokesman, but when he stands at that Box he cannot cast off everything that has been said on behalf of the Labour Party in the past. I look forward to checking Hansard to see precisely what was said. At 7.20 in the morning, the precise nature of the exchange escapes me.
It comes ill from any right hon. or hon. Member standing at that Dispatch Box to accuse my right hon. Friend of not having indulged fully in open government. The Government have laid before us a convincing document indicating that the strongest reasons exist as to why we should retain the independent deterrent that has contributed to the preservation of peace since the end of the last war. It has given the longest period of peace and freedom from major holocaust in the history of the world.
I look forward to returning to debate this matter refreshed after the recess, and I commend the fact that the Government have put so clearly before the nation the overwhelming arguments why Britain should retain the capacity it has possessed since the end of the Second World War.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: In all the sidestepping of Parliament and the avoidance of public debate over the decision already taken about Trident, no aspect has been left more uncertain, more vague and more sketchy than the economic one—the question of cost—and the further question of whether that cost constitutes a sustainable burden upon the British economy. Since it is agreed on all sides that credibility is the essence of this matter, if world opinion is left in great doubt whether the British economy can in future sustain Trident and the other consequential burdens we lose a great deal of the alleged benefit of having the weapon.
Even among supporters of the Government and supporters of this decision, there is scepticism about the scanty figures that have so far been given on the cost. Even accepting, as we must unless and until the Secretary of Staate obliges the House with much more information, the vague


starting figure of £5 billion for the deal and the surrounding costs, there are two aspects which should have close consideration by the House, not just this morning but in a full-scale debate as soon as we return after the recess.
The first aspect is that even the £5 billion punches a huge hole in the credibility of the Government's overall economic stance. The frequent dictum of the Prime Minister that Britain should at last live within its means is made nonsensical when we add to our existing defence burden the alleged cost of Trident. The Government should be aware that public opinion will not accept this as a reasonable addition to our national costs. It is all right for Britain to make cuts on every side and try to live within its means until a matter crops up about which Ministers are deeply concerned, which involves prestige and national status, when a luxury price will be paid for a benefit of doubtful value. The Government will henceforth be far less able to convince people that cuts in other fields are to enable us to live within our means. As the public become familiar with the extraordinarily high percentage of our gross domestic product that goes to defence, their scepticism will increase to a degree that could undermine the basis of the deal.
The second aspect, which concerns what is mistakenly called the real economy as distinct from the so-called financial economy, is the appalling diversion of skill required by the building of nuclear submarines. The Sunday press contains many advertisements for skilled vacancies created by such defence expenditure, and we are only at the beginning of the programme. Effort is being diverted to fields that have relatively little spin-off. There is no great export market for nuclear submarines that could justify the concentration of our rare skills. As a consequence of the Trident deal, we face a substantial diversion of capabilities that are unfortunately limited in this country at present.
I hope that this debate, as a curtain-raiser to a major debate, will at least draw attention to a great many facts, including financial and economic facts, of which Parliament has so far been deprived and on which the public have a right to insist.

Mr. David Alton: I wish to pose two questions. Do we need an independent nuclear deterrent, and should we have one? I believe that as members of NATO we do not need an independent nuclear deterrent. Even the Prime Minister in her wildest moments would not be foolish enough to launch an independent nuclear attack. It is, therefore, foolish to indulge in £5 billion of expenditure on such a deterrent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, we should instead be playing our full part in NATO. Trident is not an essential part of the NATO deterrent. It has a strike value of only 2 per cent. It is more a matter of trying to keep up with the Joneses—in this case France. Would France use an independent nuclear deterrent on its own any more than Britain?
It is also claimed that we need Trident because of the unreliability of our American allies. If there was doubt about their trustworthiness, surely that would be a reason to strengthen Europe and not go it alone. We have co-operated well with our American allies since the Second World War, and I believe that there is no reason to doubt them. We should place our money in NATO, where we would get greater value for it. Germany could argue that it, too, should have an independent nuclear deterrent on stronger tactical grounds, because of its geographical position. However, no one in this House would seriously contemplate giving Germany an independent nuclear deterrent.
The logic of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) is an argument in favour of proliferation. More and more people will rightly demand the opportunity of taking decisions and having other places where decisions will be taken. The hon. and learned Gentleman excluded everyone bar the British and the Americans. Later he accepted that perhaps the French might have a role to play because they have an independent nuclear deterrent. This could go on and on. We now see countries, such as Iraq, developing their own nuclear technology. I think that we should be worried about this development.
We have a far greater future by co-operating with our European partners. The Prime Minister recently set the tone


by the Venice declaration and by our response to the Afghanistan situation. By exhibiting a united European front we showed that we could have a different and far more flexible attitude in Europe than our American allies because of their position vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.
If it is to fill a vacuum that we need to keep an independent nuclear deterrent until we can come to an arrangement with our NATO partners, I suggest that it would be more cost-effective to prolong the life of our Polaris submarines, which could be done for about 15 years and at about 40 per cent. of the cost of Trident.
If we do not need Trident, should we have it? Everyone knows that thresholds fall if there are not adequate nonnuclear conventional forces, and that increases the risk of nuclear weapons. Trident will so sap our conventional forces that we shall be unable to contain an attack by conventional forces and will be quickly forced into a nuclear retaliation.
My noble Friend Lord Gladwyn, writing in the Daily Telegraph, said:
Even if the desirability of some continuing independent seaborne British strategic nuclear deterrent is admitted, it is becoming—apart from the fact that our submarines will probably be very vulnerable in the 1990s—increasingly clear that it can be achieved only at the expense of weakening our 'conventional' defences.
The "opportunity" cost of Trident is reckoned by many military observers to be far too great a price to pay. For instance, it will inhibit the development of anti-tank laser technology. The Royal Air Force may have to abandon plans for a replacement aircraft for the Jaguar. As regards the Navy, Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness is the only British yard capable of building nuclear-powered submarines. The decision on Trident may mean that the Navy has to interrupt production of hunter-killer and attack submarines to make way for the four Tridents. Even if people in places such as Cammell Laird's shipyard had hoped to get jobs out of the Trident deal, they are to be disappointed because it will be impossible to build these high technology submarines in that shipyard.
It is also doubtful whether these missiles will do the military job of which they are said to be capable. By the 1990s Britain's enemies may be able to track

our submarines from the moment they leave port. Their effectiveness would then be considerably reduced. Trident will then be £5 billion worth of junk. I believe that the money could be better spent on conventional defence, on solidifying the European Alliance and on much higher social priorities.
Yesterday I visited one of my constituents, Mr. Arrowsmith, of Royston Street, Liverpool. He has no inside sanitation. His son was using a tin bath when I visited him. The wallpaper and plaster are coming off damp walls. No improvements are to be made on that house because money is not avaliable as a result of the Government's public expenditure cuts. Housing is to be cut by 48 per cent. between now and 1984. Mr. Arrowsmith would rather have a bathroom than a Trident. Many other people would rather see improvements made to their schools and to their job prospects. There are 107,000 people out of work on Merseyside. I should prefer to see some of the £5 billion being used to alleviate those problems than on an independent nuclear deterrent. It is dubious whether it could ever be used. Frankly, I think that our money would be better invested in NATO.
In the paper issued by the Secretary of State, the opening paragraph on page 63 deals with the cost, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred. It contains the amazing statement that
The costs of the proposed Trident force cannot be estimated in close detail at this stage".
That is like asking for the equivalent of a blank cheque—and that comes from a Government who talk so much about the control of the money supply and prudent housekeeping policies. There is another perceptive observation that
Money spent on this is money not spent on other things".
I would have thought that that was patently clear to any observer.
There is also the way in which this document was drawn up in the first place and the way in which the deal over Trident was arrived at. I refer hon. Members to an article in The Observer on Sunday 20 July which said:
The British Government was so concerned to keep the details of the deal secret that it


felt unable to trust anyone at the British Embassy here"—
that is, America—
to type its letter of agreement.
Instead, the negotiators took some Embassy notepaper to the Pentagon and the letters of exchange were typed there. Then, after lunch at the House of British Ambassador, Sir Nicholas Henderson, the letters were signed in the street on the boot of a car.
The date was Friday, thirteenth June this year".
That is a curious way of going about business with our allies. I also refer hon. Members to The Times of 16 July, which said in a leader:
The Defence Select Committee of the House of Commons suffered the humiliation of holding hearings after the decision had in fact been made.
That strikes me as being a fairly contemptuous attitude towards Parliament, yet the Secretary of State has the nerve facetiously to call his document 80/23 an exercise in "open government". That is the sort of open government that we can all do without.
The Government claim to be concerned about how we control the money supply. In fact, they are stampeding the country into vast expenditure. Incidentally, Britain is also a signatory to the comprehensive test ban treaty. How will she go about testing the new warheads for Trident? It is clear that the Government do not care about test controls, the cost or the strategic implication of Trident. This debate need not have taken place at all had the previous Labour Government honoured their promise to let Polaris wither on the vine. Labour Members are just as much to blame as the Tories for this decision.
I conclude by quoting someone who was regarded as one of the major defence authorities over the last 50 years. Lord Mountbatten, speaking in Strasbourg, summed up the challenge for civilised nations when he said:
The real need is for both sides to replace the attempts to maintain a balance through ever-increasing and ever more costly nuclear armaments by a balance based on mutual restraint.
Better still, by reduction of nuclear armaments I believe it should be possible to achieve greater security at a lower level of military confrontation.
As a military man who has given half a century of active service I say in all sincerity

that the nuclear arms race has no military purpose. Wars cannot be fought with nuclear weapons. Their existence only adds to our perils because of the illusions which they have generated.
Britain's security depends not on her bomb but on moving the world on to other paths of peace with arms limitation and international war prevention measures. The two questions that I posed earlier were "Do we need an independent nuclear deterrent, and should we have one?" Clearly, the answer to both those questions is "No".

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), may I point out that he is listed for a later debate? If he speaks now, he will require the leave of the House before he can raise his own subject, and opposition from one hon. Member would prevent him from raising that subject.

Mr. Cryer: That is quite true, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for drawing my attention to the matter.
However, as time wears on, and with five debates yet to go before I reach my own subject, I thought that my debate might be rather more marginal than others. I also feel that to stay up all night and not make a contribution on a subject that I believe to be overriding would be more frustrating than to have an hon. Member objecting at 11 or 11.30 in the morning.
Although the subject that I wished to discuss later is important, I believe that this one is the most overriding issue facing mankind today. That is one of the reasons why I regret that there has been no debate so far. I do not think that this is a matter that should be put off for the convenience of anyone. The fact that the Labour Party tends to have two views on this subject—one from the Front Bench and one representing official Labour Party policy—is no reason for doing that. The issue is one of importance and the Labour Party, quite rightly, has raised this issue internally, because the Labour Party is a party of ideas and sees this as an important moral and economic question.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck)—who is, I think, secretary of the Tory Back Bench committee—has said that Polaris, which Trident is to replace, has maintained peace in the world. I do not think that the Vietnamese nation would exactly agree with that, because the Vietnam war lasted for many years and saw the use of weapons on a scale greater than in World War II. The notion that the people involved—and who were suffering most of all—were in a distant country and were yellow-skinned, so that it was not really of such great importance, does not hold water. One of the greatest moral shudders that went through the American nation was its concern with Vietnam. That is clear to anyone who has talked to many Americans. The notion that peace has been maintained throughout the world by the existence of nuclear weapons simply is not borne out by the facts.
The Secretary of State for Defence has been going round to various meetings and appearing on television justifying the installation of 160 cruise missiles. We are led to believe that the installation of those cruise missiles is part of our defensive alliance, that they will be a deterrent and that they will be part of the mighty opposition to the Soviet Union. If the cruise missiles are such an important strategic step forward and if they are so necessary for Western defence, one wonders why we need Trident.
The arguments of the Secretary of State are that it is absoluely vital that we should have cruise missiles, and one hopes that the Russians will not invade in the three years prior to cruise missiles being installed. So it is quite extraordinary that as these nuclear weapons are brought out and considered, they are urgent and all-demanding and they have to be installed before the Russians realise how tremendously weak are our defences.
The reality, of course, is that both camps are armed to the teeth. The propaganda which is put out by the Secretary of State for Defence—that NATO is marginally defended and that the Russians and their allies are much more strongly armed—simply is not borne out by the facts. As the Secretary of State for Defence knows, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has produced calculations to show that in

nuclear warheads in Europe NATO outnumbers the Russians two to one.
Lord Mountbatten pointed out in a speech which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton), that he could not distinguish between tactical and theatre nuclear weapons and that if one is used, so will the other be used. That was the view of a somewhat distinguished member of the Establishment.
The Secretary of State for Defence might well argue that the position is that the number of deliverable weapons is growing on the Russian side and that, therefore, we must have our own Trident system. I need hardly remind him that the document of the Institute of Strategic Studies points out that there is a nuclear balance at the moment. When the Russians produce figures to show that they are spending only 17 billion roubles per annum, the Secretary of State does not believe them and produces calculations of his own which conveniently justify the decision that he is to make. It is hardly likely that all those busy bees in the Ministry of Defence will produce calculations which show that on balance it is a marginal decision to employ Trident, cruise, Polaris or whatever. Of course, they will produce calculations on their bases which justify their decisions up to the hilt. It is one of those little incestuous arrangements that exist within various Ministries. Civil servants make the calculations to provide Ministers with justification for the decisions that Ministers have made.
The notion that the Russians are armed to the teeth and that we are relatively weak and defenceless is not borne out by the facts. If it is, the Secretary of State will have no qualms about giving to opponents of the installation of cruise missiles the facilities of which the Ministry of Defence is availing itself by spending taxpayers' money on explaining why cruise missiles should be installed. Or is it that the Secretary of State would not like to have absolute parity, would not like to have fairness and would not like to have equality in the arguments so that the people might be able to make a judgment for themselves?
The second issue is the economic position. We are told that the cost will be £5 billion. We know that it will not be £5 billion when it comes to forking


out the money. We know that it is more likely to be double that sum. Everyone present is more likely, on the basis of experience, to assume that the cost will be a sum greater than £5 billion rather than a lesser sum. Defence expenditure is an area where people go weak at the knees when it is mentioned and lose their intellectual capacity for critical scrutiny. It is an area in which if expenditure is £10 billion it is said to maintain the peace of Western Europe and it is passed. The notion that it is £5 billion is, to say the least, tentative.
Time after time, Conservative spokesmen have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that we are in a weak economic position. We are, yet we can seriously consider embarking on this sort of expenditure at a time when we are not putting enough money into research and development for the goods and services that people need.
I do not want to repeat the arguments of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). However, he was right to say that we are not putting enough skill, or enough of the ability of our people, into the manufacturing side of the economy and that producing Trident does not help because it is not something that we can export or repeat elsewhere.
I conclude on the moral position. I am not one who says that there should be debate and more open government and who justifies the decision to spend £1 billion on Chevaline. I was a member of the previous Labour Government when the decision must have been in the process of being made. Nobody asked me about it. That is one of the things that I deeply and bitterly resent.
When Tories say that there would have been an argument in the Labour movement about spending £1 billion, they are right. There would have been an argument. I would not have stayed in a Government who were spending £1 billion on updating Polaris in contravention of Labour Party policy. My record demonstrates that I have never been subservient to the system of patronage that rules in this place. The Labour movement would have rightly raised a stink about it. That is why it was not brought to public attention. Any Government must face public debate and discussion when making decisions.
This Government have difficulties with their own Back Benchers and with their own position no less than previous Governments. I much resent the fact that the decision to update Polaris was made behind closed doors. There is a moral position. If mankind is to have a future, we must be able to tell the world that we have not embarked on this stage of nuclear development and that we have not adopted Trident. Polaris is coming to an end. We have an opportunity to end the massive drain on resources. We could tell the Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians and other peoples of the Middle East that we have decided not to extend or maintain our independent nuclear stance.
The moral question is particularly important in any consideration of world poverty. The Secretary of State will argue that peace is important for the economic development of the world and that countries should not be enslaved by Russian Communism. If we want influence, we would do better to provide educational, medical and social facilities instead of spending money on increasing and improving our massive capacity to exterminate people.
One Polaris nuclear submarine contains the same fire-power as that deployed in the whole of the Second World War. That is a staggering aspect, and it should be borne in mind in any discussion of nuclear reality. In some countries, the population does not get enough to eat. The people do not enjoy the simple things of life that the Western world enjoys. When I ponder on such countries, I wonder about mankind's priorities. The Government have evinced their priorities. They are prepared to spend money on an immoral venture despite the fact that there is so much poverty in the world. They are cutting overseas aid by 14 per cent., yet they propose to spend £5 billion on Trident.
The Government have taken a sickening, immoral, unjustifiable and untenable decision. On any examination of mankind's priorities, that decision cannot be justified. I utterly reject their decision as repugnant to the aims, ambitions and aspirations of mankind. Anyone who makes claim to any type of Christian philosophy should also reject the decision. A Labour Government cannot come too soon. When that time comes, we shall be


committed to ending Trident and to embarking on a switch from warlike expenditure to expenditure for peaceful purposes. We shall set an example to the rest of the world.
It is not impossible. There have been many examples. For example, the shop-stewards at Lucas Aerospace have shown that some people genuinely want their abilities to be used for peaceful purposes rather than for warlike gestures. We need make only one error and the world will be plunged into irretrievable chaos.
The Tories believe in freedom of choice. What about giving freedom of choice to those who reject the deterrent? When the circumstances at the back of all our minds materialise, will those who press the button give those who say that they are not part of the quarrel freedom of choice? Will they be able to stand aside and say "Get on with your foolish conflict"? Alternatively, will they be plunged into a nuclear holocaust because the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Defence and the chiefs of staff have made up their minds that they will press the button?
I know the answer. There is no freedom of choice. The Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the others, in a set of circumstances which the Prime Minister will not reveal, will press the button and everybody will be sucked into the radioactive cinder heap.
There can be nothing more undemocratic and inhuman than that. If by determined and sustained opposition to Trident we can spray a little sense on the eyeballs of the Secretary of State for Defence and the others who are committed to this mad course, we shall be on our way to saving humanity from the worst aspects exhibited by expenditure on Trident.

Mr. David Steel: We have had a useful debate on the procurement of Trident. On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Secretary of Defence for coming to reply to the debate. Through the night a succession of junior Ministers usually deal with the topics. We appreciate that the Secretary of State is to reply.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) said that the debate was taking place at an unearthly and

absurd hour. It is better to have a debate on this issue at an unearthly hour than to have no debate at all. Frankly, one of the reasons why we used the opportunity of the Bill—which we did deliberately by putting several names to the topic—is that as a party we object strongly to the conspiracy of silence between the two Front Benches. It is not sufficiently understood outside the House that debates depend upon agreement between the Government and the Opposition. While one or the other can raise an issue from time to time, when there is agreement not to debate an issue the House is deprived of that opportunity.
One of the objectives of the Liberal Party, as a minority in the House, is sometimes to upset that cosy conspiracy, as we have done this morning. That is one of the reasons why I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. It is not, as the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said, to draw attention to myself. My reason is that I wish to draw attention to the fact that the official Opposition, who have so much time at their disposal, have chosen not to debate the issue until later in the year.
There has been a good deal of public outrage about the issue. I receive many letters, not only from my constituents but from people who protest that the topic has not been discussed in the House. It should have been debated specifically before the Government decision was taken. In speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I am sticking to the long-standing tradition of the House under which any Privy Councillor may speak from the Dispatch Box. I am being deeply conservative.
There is another reason why the official Opposition have not chosen to debate the matter before. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for mentioning this. An early-day motion signed by 162 of the 268 Labour Members opposes Trident. That remains undebated. One of the reasons why the official Opposition are embarrassed is that in government they practised a conspiracy of silence. It is no good the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East standing up now as a junior defence spokesman in Opposition and saying that what happened under the Labour Government was nothing to do with him. The


hon. Gentleman was a member of that Government. He was a Whip. What happened to collective responsibility? Was he another of those in the Government who did not know what was going on, as the House did not know what was going on?
The Labour Government were officially pledged against the maintenance of the so-called independent nuclear deterrent, yet they embarked on a £1,000 million refit of Polaris without parliamentary approval and without so much as a written answer in the House. They stand condemned for that piece of duplicity.
When the Liberal Party initiated a debate a few weeks ago on incomes policy, we had a silent witness on the Opposition Front Bench and no participant. I am glad that we have been able to sting the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East into participation. The hon. Member was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), who is our defence spokesman and who has taken part in every major defence debate in the House.

Mr. Snape: He has not.

Mr. Steel: He has. He asked me to apologise for his absence during the winding-up speeches. He has a long-standing engagment, as our defence spokesman, to visit an RAF establishment, and he has had to leave.
I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the question whether Britain should maintain an independent nuclear deterrent cannot be determined by objective proof. It boils down to a matter of political judgment and opinion. In government, the Conservatives have consistenly been in favour of a British independent nuclear deterrent and the decision on Trident is consistent with their long-standing view. I hope that the Secretary of State will concede that the Liberal Party has consistently opposed Britain's independent nuclear deterrent from the time of Mr. Sandys and Mr. Macmillan and onwards.
I remember from before I came to the House the arguments about Blue Streak and Polaris. It is not a departure for the Liberal Party to be opposed to the Trident decision. We are opposed to the context in which the decision was taken—namely, the belief that it is right

for Britain to attempt to have an independent nuclear deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) was wrong to suggest that we are following the French. I remember a previous Conservative Government condemning a French Government for deciding to have an independent nuclear deterrent when we had already done so. The French decision to go for an independent nuclear power base followed Britain's decision to do just that. I always felt that we were in no position to criticise the French Government for what they had done. They were simply following our logic.
One of the most forceful arguments against Britain's independent nuclear deterent is that of proliferation. If it is right for Britain to be an independent nuclear Power, why is it wrong for France, Iran, Pakistan, Israel or anyone else to acquire the bomb? The argument holds good for every nation in the world. We were the first outside the two super-Powers to embark on this dangerous road, and I believe that we were wrong.
On the grounds of secrecy and opposition to nuclear proliferation, we wish to register our strong opposition to the Government's decision on Trident. As my hon. Friends have suggested, there are other considerations as well. The first is the effect of the decision on our future defence budget.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester suggested that it was wrong to quote individual members of the military establishment, because one could pay one's money, take one's choice and find other members who held different views. The reason why there are different views within the military establishment is that the establishment is concerned about the effects on the overall defence budget.
Despite the recent announcements, which we welcome, on the uprating of conventional equipment, surely not even the Secretary of State will argue that the defence budget, within the Government's overall future expenditure programme, is some kind of bottomless pit and elastic. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. No Department's budget can be elastic, even allowing for the priority that this Government have given to defence in the public expenditure programme.
Any large chunk committed to uncertain expenditure on one item—this is bound to be the case with Trident—will have a long-term effect on what is available for the conventional uprating of the equipment of our Armed Forces. It seems odd that a Conservative Party, in any future war, could be sending our men ill equipped into battle because they had diverted so much resources to the maintenance of an outdated piece of national prestige. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, it is not even a genuine piece of national prestige. We are buying it from the Americans.
This brings me to a point that the Secretary of State has failed to answer in his previous speeches. I should like him to attempt to do so today. What are the circumstances, if we are talking of actual combat, in which it is envisaged that a British Government might wish to use the independent Polaris or Trident missile capability when the United States is not willing to use its nuclear capability? If it is conceivable that in some hypothetical future situation there was not sufficient political accord between the allies in NATO and, in particular, between the Americans and ouselves—we could make one judgment while they made another—and we wished to let loose these horrific weapons of war when the Americans were not willing to do so, as could happen, this situation would surely affect our purchasing, the repair programme and any refitting that would presumably be needed on the Trident project, because it is not a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent.
I see that in logic a case can be made for a genuinely independent nuclear deterrent, but one that is dependent for its hardware on our political allies seems to have no case in logic. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester said that we were in the deterrence business. Is it seriously argued that there is great trembling in the Kremlin at the prospect of Britain acquiring an independent nuclear capability to replace the one that we already posses and that this will make all the difference in the judgments, military and political, that the USSR will make in the future. That argument cannot stand examination.
There is also the straight economic argument, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Come Valley (Mr. Wainwright) referred, about the cost and the likely future cost of the project. Again, we have not had straight talk from the Government. We have been given the possible figure of £5,000 million. I should like to quote what was said by Air Vice-Marshal Stewart Menaul, who supports the Government's basic position on defence, in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. He said:
The United States is taking delivery of the Trident I now; Britain will not get it before the end of the decade when it will be obsolete and the cost will have escalated well beyond the £5,000 million currently claimed as the price to be paid for four submarines each equipped with 16 missiles armed with eight warheads.
He is probably right. I am sure that the cost will have escalated well beyond the £5,000 million.
If there are any doubts about what I say, I invite the House to think back to the forecast that hon. Members were given by successive Ministers on the cost of Concorde. Anything in the sphere of high technology is difficult to estimate, but the eventual cost of Concorde was about 10 times what Ministers had originally told the House it would be. I am not saying that the cost of Trident will be 10 times the announced figure, but I will bet with anybody that it will be double that figure. We must severely criticise the Government's policy on economic grounds as well as on defence and political grounds.
With the decisions which the Government have, in my view properly, taken as part of the NATO partnership, to accept their participation in the cruise missile programme, we have a belt-and-braces defence policy. One can argue that in some situations that is wise, but when they are gold-studded belt and diamond-studded braces at a time when the country is in a weak economic state, it is indefensible.
I come finally to the argument raised by the hon. Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Keighley about the overall background against which the Government are taking this decision. Most of my letters on this subject dwell on this point. The Brandt report spelt out the comparative costs of defence expenditure and the kind of spending


which it advocated in the underdeveloped world. It is the total, universal expenditure on nuclear weapons and all weapons which should be of deeper concern to us—on both sides, I hasten to say, of the Iron Curtain.
One does not have to be a pacifist or accept the unilateralist argument to say that this subject should command the greater priority attention of politicians around the world. Yet this Government have delivered a niggardly response to the Brandt report. They have cut the already puny overseas aid budget, yet in turn they have announced this massive and uncertain future expenditure on a totally unnecessary defence project. That should be a reason for the strongest possible condemnation of the Government.
As I said, it is a matter of opinion and judgment. In our opinion and our judgment, the Government were wholly wrong to proceed with this matter. That is why we have raised it, even at this early hour, because we intend to go on pressing the question. I hope that when the official Opposition get round to having their debate on the subject, we shall be back to press it again and again.

Mr. Peter Snipe: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I thought it a courtesy to the initiator of the debate that the official Opposition be represented, albeit by an extremely junior spokesman. However, having heard the whole debate, having listened to five of the Liberal Party Members and a couple of Tory Members, I am tempted to intervene if only to deplore the total hypocrisy of the Liberal Party in raising this matter at this time.
It would surely be right and relevant to raise such a matter in the debate on the Defence Estimates. There was a full, frank and—if one wants to use every cliche—fearless debate on the Estimates on 29 April. The Government's motion read:
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980, contained in Cmnd. 7826.
The official Opposition, who have been so criticised tonight, particularly by the Liberal Party, tabled an amendment, as is their wont on these occasions. It sought

to leave out from "House" to the end of the motion and to add instead thereof:
reaffirms its commitment to the proper defence of Britain through membership of NATO, and pays tribute to the men and women who serve in the armed forces and to their civilian counterparts, but declines to approve the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1980 (Cmnd. 7826) in that it fails to set out clear priorities for Britain's defence during the 1980s; commits Her Majesty's Government to increases in defence expenditure far in excess of forecasts for the growth of the economy; and offers no new initiatives towards multilateral mutual disarmament in the nuclear and conventional fields."—[Official Report, 29 April 1980, Vol. 983, c. 1174.]
Given a fairly wide-embracing amendment such as that, I should have thought that Liberal Members could have found themselves able to support us at 10 o'clock that evening. I shall not criticise Liberal Members who are not present now, because they are frequently not present—and they are frequently not present at 8.15 am. I look merely at the Liberal Members who have spoken in this debate. I look first at the Liberal Whip, the man who is responsible for getting the so-and-sos here for most of the time. Nice chap though he is, he normally fails in his task. I look at where he cast his vote on that previous night. I should have thought that our amendment would tempt him into the Labour Lobby on that occasion. He voted against the official Opposition amendment on the first vote and with the Conservative Party on the second vote. In effect, he voted Conservative twice. He has no need to check Hansard. I have a copy before me. His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) appears to want to check Hansard. I am coming to him.
The hon. Member for Edge Hill waxed eloquently about an hour ago and said how deplorable it was that the Chamber was so scantily occupied for such a major and important matter. But when I look at Hansard for 29 April—

Mr. Alton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Snape: When I have finished with the hon. Member, I shall be delighted to give way.
I have carefully studied the Division lists for 29 April during this debate, and I find that the hon. Member did not cast a vote on either of the two Questions before the House that evening. I go


further, before turning to the rest of his hon. Friends. On looking through the whole of that debate, I notice that various minority parties in the House were represented and had their say. A representative of the Ulster Unionist Party spoke. We had a speech from a representative of the United Ulster Unionist Party, as I think it is called—although I do not follow Northern Ireland politics with perhaps the diligence that I should. One hon. Member from the Scottish National Party spoke. But I have scrutinised Hansard from column 1174 to the second of the two Divisions, and nowhere can I find a speech from a Liberal Member.
I should have thought that a party that is so keen to detain the House at about 8.15 am would, during the course of what was, after all, the major defence debate in the House over a period of 12 months, have wheeled out one of its tame hacks at least to give us the Liberal viewpoint on what is the major item of Government expenditure. However, none of them spoke during the debate.
Five Liberal Members have waxed eloquent at the crack of dawn this morning. No doubt the unsuspecting citizens of various towns and cities will, in the next few weeks, have dropped through their letterboxes a publication which I have seen in my constituency—Focus. It does not do the Liberals much good there, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that you will not think that I am being particularly personal about the Liberal Party. It peddles Focus in my constituency and normally saves its deposit. All credit to the Liberals. The unsuspecting citizens who read Focus will be told that of the Opposition parties only the Liberal Party could be bothered to be present to talk about this most major item of expenditure in Britain.

Mr. David Steel: That is right.

Mr. Snape: I am sure that that is right, because I know the Liberal Party as well as anyone does. It will not affect the fact that the Liberal Party will once again be indulging in its customary hypocrisy in these matters.

Mr. Alton: I should like to correct what the hon. Gentleman said about my contribution. I never mentioned the

number of hon. Members in the Chamber. I would not expect many to be present at such an ungodly hour. The procedures of the House are badly in need of reform so that we do not have to have debates at this time.
Secondly, there was a debate on nuclear weapons on 24 January this year. The hon. Member will find my name in the "yes" list for the Division at the end. I have studied both the "yes" and the "Noes" lists, and I cannot find the hon. Gentleman's name in either.

Mr. Snape: I do not recall that debate. The major defence debate in the course of the year is surely on the Defence Estimates.

Mr. David Steel: Not on Trident.

Mr. Snape: We have not had a debate on Trident yet. No doubt we shall get round to it. The right hon. Gentleman has not done the House a service by holding a debate on Trident, if that is what it was supposed to be about, at 7 o'clock in the morning.
In the major debate on defence, which took place on 29 April, not only did most of the Liberal Members not vote but none of them spoke. I do not begrudge the Liberals their little bit of propaganda. I do not begrudge them dropping Focus through our letterboxes, but they should stick to cracked pavements and the emptying of dustbins, all the petty matters that most of us in the Chamber deal with every day of the week, without making a song and dance about them, rather than pretending that their party is the only one that cares about issues such as the one before us.
I return to two Liberal speakers who waxed eloquent in the debate. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) occasionally has a great deal to say on these matters. He made plain this morning that he felt deeply about the whole question of defence expenditure generally and whether the nation should buy Trident and replace our present nuclear weapons system. I do not disagree—

Mr. Beith: What are the hon. Gentleman's own views?

Mr. Snape: I shall come to my own points in a minute. The hon. Gentleman can rest easy. I shall not hide behind


any bushels or refuse to make the points that I have to make. For now, however, I shall concentrate on the hon. Members for Colne Valley. He made a very good speech this morning. But when I look at Hansard for 29 April this year I see that neither he nor his right hon. and hon. Friends spoke. He did not vote either. If this issue was important enough to talk about at 7 o'clock in the morning, I should have thought that it was also important enough to vote on in the debate on the Defence Estimates; but the hon. Gentleman was not there. The hon. Member for Edge Hill, who got so upset, was not there either.
The leader of the Liberal Party took me to task for an intervention that I had made and said "My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is always here when we discuss these matters. He is the Liberal Party spokesman on defence." So he is, and I would not attack the hon. Gentleman's diligence. He was here during the course of the debate on the Royal Air Force; I remember him particularly for two of his interventions. However, when we voted at 10 o'clock on 29 April 1980 the hon. Gentleman, who, like his hon. Friends, felt so strongly about this matter, voted with the Conservatives.

Mr. David Steel: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Beith: The Opposition's amendment was daft.

Mr. Snape: The amendment included the words
no new initiatives towards multilateral mutual disarmament in the nuclear and conventional fields.
If that was a daft amendment, I am surprised that the Liberal Party should have wasted our time this morning as it has done.
I have been asked during the course of my speech what I had to say about my own position. That is unimportant. Although I am a member of the official Opposition, there are lots more people who have a right to be heard on this subject. Members of the Liberal Party should have been present during the debate on the Royal Air Force earlier this year. They would have heard me give the official Opposition view from this Box.

We felt then, and feel now, that to go in for a new generation of nuclear weapons was an essentially dishonest argument.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Defence, who is present for this debate and who has not missed a single debate on defence matters, certainly not this year and, for all I know, last year too. I said in the debate on the RAF that we believed that if Britain were to stay in the nuclear arms business we would destroy our conventional forces. We believe that there is not the money to go round. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), with due respect to him, that there are those of us who stand at the Opposition Dispatch Box and who feel no less strongly than he about the important and relevant matters he has raised. It may be that from this Dispatch Box the only argument that can be put forward is a purely defence argument.
The fact that Britain appears under this Government to be staying in the arms race will destroy our conventional forces. That does not lessen my distaste for nuclear weapons, nor for the fact that the Government are spending so much on nuclear weapons that they neglect all the other important areas that my hon. Friend mentioned.
No one would claim that the Labour Party has any monopoly of compassion towards the Third world. Many Tory Members feel equally strongly about these matters. I hope that they will recognise that what my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley had to say was true. It will be said around the world that the fact that Britain professes to be able to stay in the nuclear arms business will be to the detriment of the Third world. It is no good Tory Members shaking their heads. That is what is being said throughout the world, and rightly so.

Mr. David Steel: What about Chevaline?

Mr. Snape: The leader of the Liberal Party is anxious to shift any responsibility for his own party's hypocrisy this morning. He asks "What about Chevaline?" I am not in a position to talk about Chevaline—

Mr. Steel: Quite.

Mr. Snape: The only reason why the right hon. Gentleman talks about Chevaline is that he read about it in the newspapers—because he was not in a position to know about it in any other way.
What comes out of the debate is the fact that the Liberal Party will leave no stone unturned in promoting itself. It will attack the official Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman had to do so from the Opposition Dispatch Box. Why he thought his speech would be any less relevant if made from his usual place, I do not know. Although I found his speech, as ever, interesting and lively and, I suppose, in some ways informed, I do not think that transporting himself from his usual Bench to the Opposition Front Bench enhanced the quality of what he had to say.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants the rest of the House to listen to the Liberal Party, it has to participate all the time, not just at times of its choosing. I remember the period of office of the last Labour Government when the then Liberal Whip said that the great thing about the Liberal Party was that its members were always in bed by midnight. I am bound to say that I wish there was still the same Liberal Whip and that they were all in bed by midnight.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym): As a preamble, perhaps I might be permitted to say that the sharing of the Dispatch Box by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) was a symbol of disagreement rather than harmony. Perhaps I might go on to make the comment that the whole purpose of our defences is to enable precisely the kind of argument and discussion that we have had this morning to continue.
This is an extremely important subject and people feel strongly about it, whether they take the view held by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) or by anyone else. Strong views are held and, because it is such an important matter, I think that a debate is essential not only in the House but outside. I am known to hold the view that I would have liked

a debate on the subject before the House rose, and I look forward to such a debate whenever we have it.
It was on my initiative that the debate on 24 January took place, and on that occasion I tried to answer and deal with some of the fundamental issues of our strategy, including, particularly, the nuclear element. In that speech, which lasted about 40 minutes, I covered some of the points that were raised by the right hon. Gentleman just now. I agree with him that it is a matter of judgment and that there is no way of proving that one is right, one way or the other. That is all the more true when one is contemplating a weapons system that will not come into use until the 1990s and will go on well into the next century.
But the judgment that one has to make is what arrangement of forces, and what weapons systems will, with our allies, preserve our security and enable our parliamentary democracies to continue. That is the question we must ask ourselves, and I shall be the first to say that it is an extremely difficult judgment to make in the nuclear context.
Those who question the replacement of Polaris by Trident have argued that at a time of greater instability in the world, at a time of greater risk to this country of military aggression, we should discard a capability which has played its part in maintaining the peace in Europe over the last two decades. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily believe that it has played any role. However, I think that a great majority of hon. Members from both the main parties take that view.
Our critics question the modernisation of this part of our armoury but do not seem to question the modernisation of other parts. As was said during the debate a few weeks ago, I announced the Government's decision to introduce the Challenger tank and also the new infantry combat vehicle. But I do not think that anyone—in the Liberal Party or anywhere else—questioned that decision or thought that there was any doubt about the need to keep up our conventional weapons systems.
Why is it, I wonder, that one piece of equipment is challenged—that is the case with Trident—but not the others? I would say that our total capability to


deter aggression must be complete if it is to be effective. If one bit of the structure is missing, the whole structure is weakened and cannot be effective.
It can be argued that nuclear weapons are particularly and uniquely horrifying, which they are. However, I do not necessarily disagree with the judgment that, in terms of the infliction of damage, that puts nuclear weapons in one category and other weapons in a different category. All weapons are horrifying and all are designed to kill or maim. Those who recall the awful effects of the bombing of Hiroshima should also remember the attrition in the trenches in the First World War and the lingering after-effects of the use of mustard gas.
The purpose of our deployment of nuclear weapons is to deter. We possess them and deploy them precisely to prevent their use. However, I shall not continue that fundamental argument which I deployed at some length in January.

Mr. Keith: The Minister seems to be anxious to narrow the gap that some of us have argued exists between nuclear and conventional arms. Does it remain an objective of British policy to have the power to deter the Soviet Union or any other enemy from deploying conventional arms against us and to retain the conflict at that level without having recourse to nuclear arms? Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not abandoning the view that if conflict arose we should wish to contain it at the non-nuclear level.

Mr. Pym: Absolutely not. The last thing anyone wants is war, and even less does anyone want a nuclear war. We would wish to contain it at conventional level should that prove possible. The whole context and use of nuclear weapons, whether tactical, theatre nuclear or strategic, has put us in the position where it is not worth the while of any potential aggressor to start a war

Mr. Frank Allaun: rose—

Mr. Pym: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who came into the Chamber only after the debate had been going for two hours. I know that he is interested in the subject, but I hope that he will forgive me for not giving way, because some of us have sat here

in this debate for two and a half hours having been up all night.
I must tell the hon. Member for Keighley that on 24 January I tried to explain why it was necessary to have both theatre nuclear forces and a strategic capability. Our comprehensive defence capability would not be complete without both.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said that the Trident decision represented an addition to nuclear capability and that it would destabilise the nuclear balance. On the assumption that SALT II is ratified, Trident would in the 1990s represent in relation to then current Soviet capabilities slightly more than Polaris represented in relation to Soviet capabilities in the 1960s. If we allowed our capability to be lowered, the nuclear balance would be disturbed.
The hon. Member said that Trident could inflict damage that Russia might be prepared to tolerate. I do not think so. I think that even Polaris is terrifying in what it could do if ever the button were pressed. Trident would be even more so. The reason for that is that there will be greater defensive capabilities in the 1990s. I find it impossible to suppose that the Soviets could contemplate taking that amount of damage, even though it represented the effects of a very small proportion of the total missile capability of the West, bearing in mind the United States' nuclear armoury as well.
It is the Russian perception that matters. I do not think that the Russians want their country to receive that amount of damage. I am convinced that the knowledge that we have this separate capability ultimately in our independent control if we are driven to use it will cause the Soviet Union to pause for thought.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed rehearsed a number of possibilities which only pointed out the uncertainties of the situation in the 1990s and the next century. His conclusion was that, because it was difficult to envisage precisely the scenario in which we might be driven to use the weapon, we could safely do without it. I totally disagree with that. The crucial factor is our total deterrent capability. The awful logic is that one must have the ultimate strategic deterrent able to inflict this massive damage in


order to prevent an aggressor from putting us in that position in the first place. In other words, the entire aim is not to use it.
I wish now to reject the argument used by a number of hon. Gentlemen about prestige. Anything more ludicrous than any Government or collection of people deciding to invest in a weapons system of this kind solely for the purposes of prestige cannot be imagined. It is an unmentionable thought. There is no question of our being present at any more council tables than we should have been if we did not have such a weapon system. We are led to our decision on the basis of what is necessary for our defensive armoury. We are not introducing a new system but modernising an existing capability.
A great deal has been said about the damage that the decision would or could do to our conventional weapons. I completely reject that argument. Whatever money is spent on any one thing cannot be spent on anything else. The decision to re-equip the Army with the Challenger tank represents a resource that cannot be spent in any other way. Money cannot be spent a second time. The purpose of our defence budget, large as it is, is to enable us to make a contribution to the NATO Alliance that will give us a joint comprehensive capability. Five billion pounds is an enormous sum, although it is not as great as that required for the Tornado programme.
We have confidence in the figures that I have given. I cannot say that in no circumstance will they be increased. Because the Polaris programme was carefully worked out beforehand, it cost little more than was anticipated. We had preliminary discussions with our United States partners and friends and agreed that Trident would be on the same basis. We have every confidence that the figures that I have given will be closely adhered to. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles took the extreme example at the other end of the scale—Concorde. However, a good example in the defence field is Polaris.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that we were relying more and more on nuclear weapons. That is not true. As the end, we shall not

have a greater proportion of our effort in nuclear capability than we have now. It will be broadly similar. The hon. Member said that people were anxious about the nuclear stockpile. I have a great deal of sympathy with such feelings. Stockpiling has been occurring on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the past 15 years, that has been dramatically so in the case of the Soviet Union. It causes greater fear than before. What is required is mutual and balanced arms control. The hon. Gentleman also said (hat Trident would not deter. I completely disagree.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) is not in the Chamber, and I shall not dwell on his remarks. He mentioned open government. The negotiations with our United States friends and partners is advantageous to the United Kingdom. It requires us both to come to an agreement. If one is negotiating about possible arrangements and weapons systems, it is impossible to put all the cards on the table. One does not know whether the other partner will be willing at the end of the day to do a deal on that basis. Until the last minute, one does not know what the deal will be.
It is unreasonable to suggest that we conducted the negotiations not in an open manner. In the document that I published and in the earlier debate, I went out of my way to be as forthcoming as possible with all the information on defence. We tried to follow that policy in our White Paper. In everything that I have done, I have tried to be as open as I can. It is impractical to have extremely difficult negotiations with a foreign country open to everyone to review, criticise and question.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) made a somewhat thin and confused speech. He appeared to suggest prolonging Polaris because that would be cheaper. That is not a practical option and would be more expensive. The hon. Gentleman appeared to be accepting the need for the strategic deterrent to continue. He went on to say that it would be better to spend the money on conventional weapons and forces than on nuclear, and at a later stage he indicated that it would be better to spend it not on defence but on other socially desirable purposes. I thought that he made a confused speech.
I hope that when we return from the recess we shall have a proper and full debate on this crucially important subject beginning at 3.30 pm. I have been as forthright as possible at all stages, both inside and outside the House, in presenting the argument for the Trident. It needs to be presented, because it is controversial. I have never had the slightest hesitation about that aspect. But, after the most careful consideration, in our view it is an absolutely indispensable element in our defence capability.
The purpose is not to use nuclear weapons but to preserve the peace of the world so that our freedom, way of life and parliamentary traditions can continue and we can go on sitting up all night on the Consolidated Fund Bill if that is what we want to do. That is its sole purpose. The Government are sure that spread over 15 years it can be contained within the defence budget. Indeed, it will be contained within the defence budget. No alternative use of those resources would make such a significant and crucial contribution to our defence capability as the decision that we took and which I announced.

Orders of the Day — SMALL BUSINESSES

Mr. J. F. Pawsey: I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will not misunderstand me when I say that I do not regret having kept him up throughout the night. He is noted both for having a fertile mind and for being imaginative. I am sure that he has put his time to good use, and I look forward to hearing in due course the ideas that he will be presenting as a result of his arduous hours spent in the Chamber.
I have listened to various debates on industry and small businesses and heard contributions by college lecturers, lawyers, soldiers and officers of trade unions; but seldom have I heard a contribution by a real business man, and even more seldom have I heard a contribution by someone who could be described as a small business man.
I started in business in the mid-1960s. Although my business has grown and I can perhaps no longer be counted as a member of the small business ranks, none the less I retain sufficient contact with

my old business and other business men to speak with some authority on the problems facing small businesses.
Since the mid-1960s the mass of regulations and red tape affecting industry has grown. Small businesses, because they are small, cannot afford to set up specific departments to deal with the legal problems caused by legislation or special departments to deal with the problems of finance. But increasingly the average business man is required by the mass of legislation that pours from this House and from the EEC to be an expert in a range of subjects not allied to his business, and to be an expert in fields not related to his particular work.
Let us recall how and where small businesses start and who small business men are. Traditionally, two or more skilled tradesmen—millers, grinders, capstan operators or setters—may decide to break away from their company and to have a go on their own. They used to start in old warehouses or dilapidated premises in the inner cities, or within their sheds or garages, but increasingly the planners and the bureaucrats have ensured that that is no longer possible. This natural nursery for small businesses no longer exists.
Small business men of the type that I have described have skills, and they are usually in their hands. They may be good millers, turners or grinders, but they are seldom personnel managers or company secretaries. They establish themselves by contacting companies that sub-contract work. They establish themselves by giving a faster, better or cheaper service, and their overheads are usually lower. They start because they want freedom, because they want to be their own boss, and because they want more money. They start because they want profit, and they are prepared to work and to have a go. They are prepared to take risks.
But increasingly many of those who should be starting small businesses have decided that the game is no longer worth the candle, and that the risks that they take are too great. It is worth remembering that simply because one sets up a limited liability company one is not necessarily excused from financial liabilities. Increasingly, when a small business is started, the banks and finance houses insist that personal guarantees are given, and not just from directors, but from


directors' wives. Those personal guarantees relate not just to the company itself but to the director's home. Therefore, he becomes personally responsible.
That is the problem—that increasingly the profit and the incentive are not worth the risk. Small business traditionally provides many jobs. At present I think that the figure is in the region of 6 million. The part that small business could play in reducing the number of unemployed, particularly at this time, can scarcely be overstated. We want to see the creation of more businesses. They should be encouraged and should not be denied.
For example, local authorities should be less difficult and obstructive on matters relating to planning controls. They should be less obstructive on matters relating to building regulations. They should be more sympathetic and understanding to the problems experienced by a business, particularly in its early days. So frequently the planners seem to operate in some form of bureaucratic vacuum, seeing only paper problems and not understanding the real problems and difficulties with which the average small business man must cope.
Local government is not the only source of irritation to industry and business. Industry is in trouble; there can be no denying that. Basically, the reasons fall into two separate areas—the external reasons and the internal reasons. The external reasons are the world slump and the ever-increasing cost of oil. The fact is that the cost of oil has trebled in the past two years. It is appreciated that Governments of whatever colour can exercise very little control over oil prices or a world slump.
However, the internal problems are very different indeed, and I should like to turn to some of the difficulties that are experienced by small business men. For example, there are high interest rates. I should like to make it clear that industry does not borrow for fun. It borrows because it needs the money for investment, plant, machinery, new buildings, modifications to old equipment and, of course, for stock. Business has no alternative but to borrow, because so often it is simply impossible for it to generate sufficient funds from its own cash flow.
There is an argument—perhaps my hon. Friend will comment on it—that a differential interest rate should apply to business. I appreciate that such an arrangement would be difficult to police. None the less, that should not necessarily rule a differential rate out of court.
There is also the attitude of organised labour and the trade unions. There are the exorbitant wage demands that industry has so frequently had to suffer. There is overmanning, and the fact that management spends so much of its time working out agreements with its own shop floor. It spends more time doing that than on running the business, getting out and obtaining new orders or developing new products.
At this point I should like to quote from a letter from a constituent company, Sheet Metal Developments Limited, which wrote to me on 25 July. It says that it would like a few of the problems that Governments have created.

"1. The redundancy act with its lump sum payment, this has to be faced at a time when the company is already suffering from a low order book and finances stretched to the limit."
2. The Health and Safety Act which has been, and is, very costly and time consuming.
3. The Employment Protection Act. Small sub-contracting companies rarely have a forward order load of more than two months, and therefore must always tend to under employ.
4. Local councils then proceed to squeeze the last remaining drop of blood with ever increasing and excessive rate valuations and demands.
5. Cash flow is a major problem to small industry"—

and so on. I shall not weary the House at this time with the further points that are developed.
It is worth while recalling the words of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), when he said so eloquently that one man's wage increase was another man's job. I wonder how often that has to be repeated inside the House and outside before the message finally sinks in. Companies can no longer afford to pay more than they earn, and if high wages are to be paid they must be reflected by a high level of productivity in a particular factory or plant.
Much of the youth unemployment that exists at present could be taken up were trade unions to recognise that those young People who are being employed should


receive a rate of remuneration that adequately reflects their lack of experience, knowledge and responsibility, for too often wage rates to young people are inflated as a direct result of union intervention.
I believe that the Government have a part to play in the all-important question of youth unemployment. The Government should be looking very hard indeed at a form of differential national insurance contribution. Young people's contributions should be at a much lower rate than currently exists.
If notice were taken of my two suggestions, I have no doubt at all that many of our young unemployed people would be finding jobs and obtaining useful work.
I have already referred to what I describe as the tide of legislation—for example, the health and safety at work legislation. From the way things are going, I believe that we shall have the safest, the cleanest and the emptiest factories in the world. From my personal experience within the group of which I am a director, I know that the oncost to British industry of health and safety at work legislation must be about 15 per cent. I say that because frequently machines that my own group purchases from Europe and from the United States of America have to be fitted with additional guards. These are guards which the manufacturers think are unnecessary and which other operating companies in Europe and the United States equally find unnecessary. It is not just the expense of installing the guards. There is also the necessity of employing additional labour because of the inefficiencies which are generated by the guards. Here I should like to quote an example from our group. We have to stop certain print machines before we insert ink. We are the only country in the world which has legislation insisting upon that.
There is also the lack of consistency that exists in the enforcement of health and safety at work legislation. The group of which I am a director examined a company with a view to purchase. The company is based in Kent. When we examined the factory we discovered that the legislation to which we were working in Durham did not apply to the company in Kent. It was operating without the necessities which the factory inspectorate

had advised us that we should be introducing.
I am not arguing for a return to nineteenth century laissez-faire England—far from it—but I am arguing a case for a return to common sense. We have job protection, redundancy payments and tribunals. The situation is such that many employers, even with the amendments that have been introduced by my right hon. and hon. Friends, will not employ additional labour. They recognise that if they win an order and it is lost or cancelled, for whatever reason, they will be unable to streamline the work force to reflect the new condition of the order book.
I do not doubt the sincerity of those who introduced the legislation to which I have referred. However, what has happened in practice as distinct from theory is that too often job protection has in the long run become job restriction, or even job destruction.
I appreciate that my right hon. Friends are controlling inflation. As I said in an intervention earlier in the debate, the Government believe that the control of inflation is a prerequisite for putting industry back on the right road. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friends are producing an evident improvement in the inflation rate, and I look forward to quite a dramatic drop in the rate of inflation during the coming months. I shall be interested to hear the views of my hon. Friend when he replies.
Business men do not require exhortations. They do not need to be reminded of the need for profit, for if an opportunity exists, the overwhelming majority of business men will seize it. What is now required is a far better understanding by the Government of how business and industry work. Senior members of the Government and the Civil Service should spend time not in the great companies, such as Marks and Spencer, but in the smaller companies, employing fewer than 100 people. They should be spending their time not in the great banking houses but in manufacturing industry. I am convinced that with the experience that they would gain they would have a far better grasp and understanding of the effects of some of the legislation that has poured through the House.
There is not a great deal wrong with the man on the shop floor or with the average manager or director. However, there can be no doubt that the will to work and the will to take risks is being steadily eroded. My hon. Friend should address himself to that trend. Many of the policies of the present Administration are geared to that aim, but I am not yet convinced that they really understand well enough the burdens that have been created and are being carried by industry—burdens that are increasingly causing bankruptcies and are responsible for the present appalling rate of unemployment.

Mr. Peter Fry: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey) for introducing this subject. He has given me the opportunity to direct the attention of the House, especially my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, to a disturbing situation in the area that I represent. As my hon. Friend knows—he has visited Northamptonshire—the county is substantially one of small businesses. We do not have the large employers that are to be found in other areas.
The county has expanded considerably in the past few years, and an enormous number of young people are leaving schools. We calculate that about 35,000 new jobs will be required in the next five or six years. The problems at Corby mean that we shall need about 10,000 new jobs there. We face the daunting task of providing about 45,000 jobs.
Since shortly before Christmas a most alarming number of firms have been going into liquidation or closing their branches. These have been mostly small firms. They include Ideal Clothiers Ltd. of Wellingborough, which has cut out 49 jobs: Wallis and Linnell Ltd., clothing manufacturers, which is shedding 250 jobs at Kettering, and completely closing down; Rushton and Sons Ltd., manufacturers of footwear components, which has shed 150 jobs in all; Leather Dressers, of Burton Latimer, which has contracted to the extent of 28 jobs; Adams Brothers Ltd. of Raunds, footwear manufacturers, which has shed 42 jobs; and Cox and Wright Ltd., of Rushden, shoe machinery engineers, which has shed 57 jobs. I could read out a list of firms, many of

which would share the twin industries of clothing and footwear, and the associated trades. For a long time those industries have provided Northamptonshire's staple employment.
The time has come for steps to be taken to instil, once more, a greater degree of confidence in the future. During the past month I called two meetings of those firms involved in the footwear and leather industries. The response of local industry was staggering. Virtually every local firm was represented. I gained the overall impression that the industry had begun to feel that the Government had forgotten it. The industry thinks that firms of that size are being placed on one side and occasionally sacrificed to those concerns that sell large amounts of heavy equipment overseas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby has amply illustrated the problems. However, many small firms find themselves in trouble for other reasons. In the past, many were urged to export. The reaction of a number of firms was highly commendable. In the past few months the export markets have dried up. Many now find that they must compete in a smaller home market and against very fierce overseas competition. If I were to add to my hon. Friend's list the problems besetting my part of the world I would have to add four more.
First, there is an unfortunate degree of unfair competition from other EEC countries. There is no doubt that sections of the Italian industry do not have to cover the oncosts mentioned by my hon. Friend, such as those arising from health and safety at work measures and many other aspects of industrial activity. As a result, small firms in my constituency find it impossible to compete. They are therefore being undersold.
Secondly, very unfair competition is being experienced from countries such as Brazil. During the past few months, Brazilian imports into Britain have risen by an alarming percentage. In the first five months of this year, they rose by 45 per cent.
Thirdly, many local firms in my constituency have been affected by increased sales from Eastern Europe and the Communist countries. Imports from Czechoslovakia increased by 50 per cent. in the


first five months. Imports from Poland have risen by 32 per cent. Both of those countries are substantial exporters to Britain.
Fourthly, the export markets to which many of my local firms used to sell have closed down. Small firms are crucial to the survival of the county. Many towns and large villages in my constituency are virtually dependent on one trade. If those small firms—many of which employ between 50 and 200 people—are forced out of business the area will change from an area of average unemployment to one of very high unemployment. Indeed, it is not too wild to say that if the shoe and leather industry were to collapse parts of Northamptonshire would virtually become disaster areas.
I do not suggest that the Government are solely responsible, or that they can supply all the answers. However, the Government should recognise that a crisis of confidence exists in Northamptonshire. They should take positive steps to help. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already taken some steps in that direction. He has visited the county and has expressed an interest in my constituents and in those of neighbouring hon. Members. However, interest alone is not enough. I urge him to discuss with his colleagues constructive steps that will show clearly that the Government recognise the problems of small firms in my constituency and the rest of the county and intend to do something about them.
One of the problems is the trade cycle. We are going through a deep trough. It will be some time before buying and restocking takes place. The all-party footwear group has had the advice of distributors and wholesalers. They are willing to prepare estimates of when they believe that the rebuying will take place. It is obvious that many of the firms that exist on the temporary employment subsidy will run out of subsidy before the market starts to upturn. I hope that the Minister will ensure that the subsidy is not arbitrarily cut off when industry is suffering severe damage and there is a risk of a sudden drop in employment. The subsidy should be extended for a few weeks at least until orders are coming in and confidence is returned.
I hope that the Minister will encourage the steps being taken by the industry, the retailers and wholesalers, to mount a campaign in the autumn to sell British made products. Steps are being taken, but Government help and advice is needed. Small firms are unable on their own to mount the marketing exercise needed to be entirely successful.
The Government must make at least one dramatic gesture to show that we shall not allow the products of British firms to be undersold deliberately by dumped clothing or footwear. The Minister should examine Brazil. There is no question but that Brazilian products are being brought into Britain at a very low price. We can take action against the Brazilian Government. It is not much good just warning them, as the Minister for Trade has done. Concrete action is required. If the Government took that action and moved along the lines which I have discussed, the small firms in my constituency and in the rest of the county will take heart, weather the next winter's storms and I shall not have to make such a speech this time next year.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): As the hours have passed during the night I have been reminded of the tale of the hon. Member who, after an all-night sitting, dreamt that he was making a speech in the House and woke up to find that he was. That is not true of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), who I found at regular intervals during the night hovering round the Chamber, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Sir A. Costain). An important contribution was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). I am disappointed that no Liberal Members are in the Chamber to listen to this important but short debate.
It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby should draw attention to the importance of the role of small businesses. They are vital to the quality of life which we all tend to take for granted. The milk that is delivered first thing every morning, the newspaper that comes through the door, and other services that help to improve the quality of life and that are taken for granted are the


result of a constant ant-heap of small business activity.
More important to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is the fact that small businesses are the seed corn from which businesses of the future will grow and from which the jobs of the future will come. As some industries contract we have to ensure that we create the climate in which other industries will be born and will grow to take the place of those that are contracting. One of the values of the debate is that it has enabled me to listen to the views of my hon. Friends. I am conscious that it is important for Ministers to listen as well as to talk. Therefore, I do not intend to take long.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister referred to the need to listen as well as to talk. I am sure that he will be aware of the speeches made my by hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. White) and the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) yesterday on the problems of the larger paper industry and the small businesses in the paper and board industry.
Will the Minister reply to the many points made by those hon. Members on behalf of the industries that they represent? Some of us have waited in the Chamber all night for a substantive Government statement on the industry. As it includes many smaller businesses, the Minister may wish to take the opportunity to reply to those points.
The hon. Gentleman will also be aware of the considerable number of representations that have been made to him over the past few months by SOGAT, on behalf of the 3,500 workers in newsprint, as well as the 60,000 in the paper and board industry and the 140,000 in the converting industry. Representations have also been made by the Paper and Board Manufacturers Federation, which asked the Department a few weeks ago for undertakings on the question of energy prices.
It has not been possible to bring a Minister from the Department of Energy to the House at this unholy hour, but perhaps the Under-Secretary will comment on the possibility of energy subsidies being introduced to protect the industry, particularly when it is clear that within

six or eight months there could be as many as 7,000 to 10,000 workers in the paper industry losing their jobs and perhaps another 10,000 losing their jobs in the converting and sub-processing industry.

Mr. Mitchell: I congratulate the hon. Member on having waited throughout the night and finding a way through the procedures of the House in order to raise the problems of the industry that he had hoped to be able to discuss in more detail on Second Reading.
It would not be fair to my hon. Friends or to the House for me to seek to reply to a debate that has not taken place, even though the hon. Gentleman's intervention dealt with important matters. If the hon. Gentleman wished to centre his debate round energy and to ensure that he had an energy Minister to reply, he should have raised his topic on another part of the Bill. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman as he would wish, because I have to deal with the matter before the House, which is the problems of small businesses.
I listened with respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby who clearly spoke with experience as one who has run his own business. The House gains enormously from the advantage of hearing from those who have such experience. It is refreshing to see the emergence on this side of the House of a large number of hon. Members who have had practical experience of running a business—as you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, have had yourself—and who are now able to contribute to our debates.
My hon. Friend described the start-up situation and drew attention to the need for people to have a balance of skills. Often, someone with a particular skill will start in engineering or structural work but will not possess the balance of skills necessary for a successful business. Those skills will include marketing, financial management, and such matters. That is one reason why, since assuming responsibility within the Department of Industry, I have extended the work of the small firms counselling service nationwide. We are able to bring experienced businessmen to give advice and provide a problem-solving service to those starting in business who run into difficulties. Those thinking of starting a business—if I am allowed to advertise—should pick


up a telephone, dial 100, and ask for Freefone 2444. The ywill find themselves in contact with the small firms services of the Department of Industry and automatically able to get in touch with the counselling service.
The counselling service extends across the whole country. In addition, in the rural areas there are available the services of COSIRA, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which provides an even more intensive service of consultancy and assistance with raising finance that is important to small firms.
My hon. Friend talked about the reward-risk ratio, and said that it was not worth while for people to start businesses. That has been the situation. I would, however, ask my hon. Friend to take on board the substantial changes that have been brought about by the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his first Budget, made the largest-ever reductions in tax at the top end. The man who now makes a success of his business has a substantial benefit in cash terms—more than doubled, from 17p to 40p in the pound in his take-home pay. This tips the risk-reward ration in the right direction as far as rewards are concerned.
My hon. Friend also referred to the compliance costs. It is true that the smaller the business the greater becomes the burden of complying with the requirements of Government control and regulations. The smaller the business the higher up the management pyramid one goes. No one in a large business can imagine how a managing director's time is taken up filling up forms. There are staff in the large business to carry out such tasks. In the small business, it is the managing director's time, in driving the business forward, that is at such a premium but that is lost in complying with the requirements of regulation and control.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the difficulty of planning in start-up situations. He can take some comfort from the fact that a circular on development control will be issued before the House reassembles following the recess. This will help small firms to start up where their activities are not damaging to the neighbours and inimical to the general planning strategy for the area.
I cannot pick up all the points from the letter to which my hon. Friend referred, but it drew attention to the way in which the Employment Protection Act has acted as a barrier to job creation. We have made a change here of substantial importance. Any small business with 20 or fewer employees will have a two-year qualifying period before the unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act start to bite. That aligns it with the two-year qualifying period for redundancy payments. So my hon. Friend can say to his small business constituent "Do not worry about this area of that legislation. You have two years clear run before you need concern yourself with that problem."
My hon. Friend drew attention to the Health and Safety Executive's rigid requirement for guards on machinery in excess of that recommended by the manufacturers and that used throughout Europe and America. None of us wants to see a lowering of standards which risks people's lives or limbs, but if standards are being asked for here which slow up production and are contrary to the standards required elsewhere for the same machinery, I should like to know about it. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would send me full details of these and any similar burdens placed upon the cost of production.
However, on my hon. Friend's reference to a lack of consistency between one part of the country and another, there is a genuine problem. If we are to allow flexibility, we will not necessarily get consistency. Rigidity will bring consistency, but flexibility means different interpretations by different inspectors. That is the price of flexibility.
My hon. Friend talked about the need for cash in a business. This is absolutely essential. He asked for differential interest rates. I am afraid that I have to disappoint him. The problem is twofold—first, to the extent that one has lower rates for one group in the community, to achieve the same average level of interest rates, there have to be higher ones for the rest of the community. Worse than that, the really enterprising small business man—I do not blame him, because he is an enterprising fellow—will simply take the money at the lower rate and pop down the road as fast as he can


and on-lend it at the higher rate. There are practical problems, therefore.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough stressed the needs of his constituency, particularly in reference to the footwear industry. I am following with great concern the problems of this industry. If my hon. Friend, as chairman of the all-party committee on footwear, wishes to come with his colleagues to discuss these problems in greater depth than is possible today, I shall be happy to receive them.
As for Poland and Czechoslovakia, we have had no increase in the voluntary restraint agreement over the past three years. That makes it very difficult for us now to ask for a reduction, when the general pattern and pressure everywhere outside this country is to increase the amounts allowed to be brought in.
The problem of Brazil is a special one. I have seen the Brazilian chargé d'affaires with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, and made clear to him the problems that my hon. Friend drew to our attention. There is a serious problem—not because the overall level of Brazilian exports to this country is massive but because it is concentrated in certain narrow sectors of the trade and does immense damage as a result.
On the problem of dumping, we have a special anti-dumping unit at the Department of Trade, which will certainly consider any properly investigated and documented evidence of dumping. I should be glad to hear from my hon. Friend on that.
This debate has enabled hon. Members to make valuable contributions to the Department's and my own thinking in small business policy. I am grateful to my hon. Friends for having put some new items in my in-tray. During the early hours of the morning, at about 4 am, I managed to get my "in" tray somewhat more empty than it usually is. My hon. Friends have now filled it up again. I had better go on to deal with that. I thank them for having raised these matters this morning.

Orders of the Day — PATRICK JOSEPH CONLON

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I thank the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), for his presence. As he knows, the late Patrick Joseph Conlon—better known as Giuseppe Conlon—and six others were convicted at the Central Criminal Court, after a long trial, of possessing nitroglycerine for an unlawful object—namely, terrorism.
Conlon's Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is in his place.
I first became interested in the case when I heard a distinguished Unionist lady tell me about it. She was associated with charitable work in Belfast with the Conlons' parish priest, the Reverend Vincent McKinley of St. Peter's Pro-Cathedral. He tells me that he is no lover of political clerics. He holds that there are enough of them on the two sides of the channel. Father McKinley refused to allow the remains of the Provisional IRA bomber, Kevin Delany, to be brought into his church. I respect and I believe a priest of this calibre.
The case for the prosecution rested almost entirely on forensic evidence. It rested on a test which was developed by a Mr. Yallop, who stands high in his profession and who developed the test known as thin layer chromotography—TLC. This process brought about the conviction of Conlon and the co-accused; and yet Mr. Yallop has told me that the Scottish verdict of "not proven" would have been more appropriate than a verdict of "guilty".
Another who believes Conlon to have been unjustly condemned is the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Hume, who visited him when he was a convicted prisoner and very ill—for Conlon had suffered from tuberculosis since the early 1960s, and he died on 23 January in Hammersmith hospital, to which he had been removed from Wormwood Scrubs.
When Father McKinley spoke at Conlon's funeral mass, he described Conlon as
chronically sick, peace-loving, gentle, kindly … seldom leaving the shelter of his former home in Cyprus Street, Belfast.


The father said that Conlon had travelled to England with "great physical affliction".
As Mr. Justice Donaldson said in his summing-up, the reason for Conlon coming to London which he had not visited for 17 years, was concern for his son Gerard, who was arrested at home in connection with the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings of October and November 1974, and needed to be defended. It appears that on arriving in London, Conlon failed to contact his brother-in-law Hugh Maguire and lodged instead with another brother-in-law, Paddy Maguire, in Third Avenue, Harlesden. It was Paddy Maguire's wife Anne who gave her name to what came to be called "Aunt Annie's bomb factory."
Conlon was arrested with the Maguires and others. He was too ill to appear in court for his first remand. He was never given bail. Throughout his incarceration he wrote frequently to his wife Sarah. I quote but one sentence from one letter:
I was never an IRA man in my life and I never will be.
Like me, Giuseppe Conlon had some wartime service in the Royal Marines. His service was not particularly distinguished; nor was mine. Giuseppe's son Gerry Conlon was convicted in a separate trial for bombing in Guildford. The explosive used was alleged to have come from Annie Maguire. However, the police found no nitroglycerine in or near the house in Third Avenue. A sniffer was brought in—that is to say, a mechanical sniffer, not a dog, such as from time to time checks your august Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
If one handles nitro-glycerine one stands to get a splitting headache, which can affect one for a long time. None of the accused in the case against Conlon and others complained of a headache. One might say that that is not surprising. However that may be, none of the accused were asked whether they had a headache. They were all convicted on forensic evidence without other corroborative evidence.
Swabs were taken from hands and fingernail clippings and were immersed in a solution which dissolves explosives. A trace was stated to have been found on a glove belonging to Annie Maguire. According

to Mr. Yallop, who invented it, the test had
been used in the wrong way",
so it is not to be wondered at that Mr. Yallop has misgivings and would welcome a review of the case.
I have compressed into a few inadequate words a complicated case resting almost entirely on forensic evidence, difficult for the non-scientific mind to grasp. The jury's task was hard and uneviable. I cannot help wondering whether this was a case less suitable for the Old Bailey than for one of those maligned Diplock courts of Northern Ireland, where terrorists are tried by a judge without a jury. Those courts are familiar with the methods of terrorism and with such matters as innocent contamination.
It is not for the House to retry the case. My request is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should consider instituting a suitable inquiry. I dare hope that a Royal Pardon might in the end be recommended for the late Giuseppe Conlon. I do not comment on any of his co-accused.
When Giuseppe was convicted, the plea in mitigation made mention of the
short amount of time that he had spent in this country
and of Conlon's understandable reason for coming here, despite his ill health, after 17 years. It was put to Mr. Justice Donaldson that he should not
shrink from making a differentiation in the case of Mr. Conlon".
It has been suggested that the jury might have been influenced by the atmosphere of terror, atrocity and suspicion then pervading England, in the wake of those terrible bombings. I say no word against jury, judge, or those, including my right hon. and learned Friend the present Attorney-General, who appeared for the Crown. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows that our great system of justice is not infallible. Several persons convicted and imprisoned have recently been released. Giuseppe Conlon, it might be said, has already been released by his death.
Throughout the United Kingdom we defend the rule of law against anarchy and terrorism. Let the Conlon case be studied afresh by expert opinion—scientific as well as legal, for in the just struggle


against terrorism we vitiate our cause unless we do all within our power to keep the sword and scales of justice clean and unsullied.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: On 19 January this year I visited Patrick Joseph Giuseppe Conlon in Hammersmith hospital. It was obvious that he was seriously ill and dying. He told me that he knew he was dying and asked me to promise that if he died I would do everything possible to prove that he was innocent of the crimes for which he was convicted and sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and I have over the months since Mr. Conlon's death been closely involved in trying to prove his innocence. The hon. Gentleman described how Mr. Conlon arrived in England, having left Belfast on 2 December 1974. He was a very ill man; he had suffered for 15 years from tuberculosis. He had come to London to try to arrange legal representation for his son, who had been charged with a very serious offence—the Guildford bombing.
Mr. Conlon arrived in London on 3 December, and visited his sister. He had a sleep, because he was very tired, very ill and out of breath. He had little to eat, because he was taking 26 tablets a day to deal with his lung and chest infection. He then went to a bar with his brother and friends. He was altogether seven hours in London.
The police picked up Mr. Conlon and his colleagues in London and arrested them. They took swab tests, and on the evidence of those tests Mr. Conlon and the others were found guilty of possessing explosives. The hon. Member for Epping Forest has rightly said that that was very flimsy evidence. It has been called into question by many eminent people. The hon. Member mentioned a few; let me mention some more. There was also the Cardinal Archbishop of Armagh, the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster and all the members of the legal profession involved in the case. Indeed, Mr. Conlon was advised to go to England by his Belfast solicitor, Mr. Ted Jones, who was planning

to travel there the following day. By the time he would have arrived in England Mr. Conlon had been arrested.
Since the day of his arrest Mr. Conlon has pleaded his innocence, to the arresting officers, to the judge, to the jury, to the prison governor, to the prison warders, to the nurses who looked after him during his last illness in Hammersmith hospital and to myself on 19 January. He has pleaded consistently and incessantly his innocence of the charge on which he was convicted.
I recognise that it is an onerous responsibility for me to stand on the Floor of this House and to plead the innocence of Mr. Conlon, because he is no longer able to give any further information or to defend himself. I accept this onerous responsibility, but not lightly. I am supported by all of the persons to whom I have referred. The person who spoke on behalf of Mr. Conlon Mr. H. J. Yallop, was the person who perfected the test under which Mr. Conlon was convicted. Mr. Yallop is an eminent scientist. He found himself able to go into the witness box and speak on behalf of the persons who had been charged.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest said that Mr. Conlon bore none of the signs, such as suffering from headache, that might be expected from a person who had been dealing with nitroglycerine. It is still an unresolved question whether there cannot be millions of substances available which would show the same positive results as those shown in the test in question.
Mr. Quentin Edwards, QC, speaking in defence of the accused said in court:
There are potentially millions of substances which would have the same chemical reaction … It must raise a very grave question about the reliability of the test if it stands alone. For this reason you need to have a confirmatory test. That was not done in this case, and that really does have serious dangers
The minute material involved, or alleged to be involved, was about one-thousandth part of one grain of sugar. Mr. Yallop, the eminent scientist to whom I have referred, said in a letter to the hon. Member for Epping Forest:
I must make it clear, however, that the evidence was very well considered at the trial and that the jury returned their verdict … Such people as I have spoken to about this case and who have expressed doubts have all had the same point in mind, namely that


they feel that the jury came to the wrong verdict on the evidence put before them. However, the Appeal Court declined to upset this verdict".
In another letter Mr. Yallop says:
My own feeling is that it would be good if this case could be reviewed. I would, however, have misgivings about a review by a member of the legal profession since this would inevitably lead to the suspicion that he would be tempted to whitewash his own profession. The right sort of make-up would be an academic lawyer and an academic chemist.
Here we have the man who perfected the test, who spent 30 years at Woolwich dealing with this type of material, and who is calling the verdict into question.
On 18 July the Home Secretary saw fit to release two men who had served 11 years in prison. Only yesterday, because of the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), three further people had their names cleared because it was felt they had been wrongly convicted. These men, after having spent a considerable time in prison, were able to live to see their consciences cleared and their actions vindicated. That was not to be for Giuseppe Conlon. Giuseppe Conlon died in prison and he has left the responsibility with myself and a few others. The numbers will grow and their voice will be heard incessantly until justice is done in this case.
Mr. Conlon died in Hammersmith hospital, a very lonely man, far away from his friends and far away from his home. He has left a few people behind to try to clear his name because his name needs to be cleared. The stigma of the trial and of the offence for which he was convicted rests heavily on the shoulders of his wife, his daughters, and many other people in Northern Ireland. They will never rest until his name is cleared.
I ask the Home Secretary, whom I knew in his position as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and in other aspects, as a man of humanity and compassion to review all the circumstances of this case. I ask him to do that without fear of the obstacles into which he will undoubtedly run. Many people throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom will wish to let sleeping dogs lie. They will say that the court has given its verdict, that

the law has taken its course and that those people were rightly convicted.
I say, without fear or hesitation, that those people were wrongly convicted. I refer specifically to the case of Giuseppe Conlon, but if the other cases are called into question let it be so. I say that the Home Secretary—or his successors—will one day be forced to come to the Dispatch Box to say that Giuseppe Conlon was innocent of the crime of which he was convicted. The ghost of Giuseppe Conlon will not go away. He was wrongly convicted.
A few days before he died Mr. Conlon told his wife that if he were to die he could look God in the eye and say that he was innocent of that crime. He said the same thing to me on 19 January. He wanted to be proved innocent. If it happens it will be posthumous. It will not do him any good, but it will go to show that the famed British judicial system of which this country is rightly proud—a system famed all over the world—can make mistakes. It will show that when it does make mistakes they must be admitted and that those people who have been unjustly sentenced to terms of imprisonment can be cleared.
I make a heart-rending appeal to the Home Secretary on behalf of Giuseppe Conlon and his relations, and all those people in this country who believe in justice, to review this case. I am quite certain that on review it will be found that Giuseppe Conlon was not guilty of the crime of which he was convicted.

Mr. Christopher Price: I intervene in this debate only because I have had recent experience of what my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) spoke about. It is possible for miscarriages of justice to take place in the English courts and it is sometimes takes a very long time for the courts to recognise their mistakes.
Perhaps I could correct one point so that the Minister of State does not need to do that. The Confait case, to which my hon. Friend kindly referred, was not one in which three young men were held in custody until recently. They were released in 1975. A subsequent inquiry, as it were, purported to reconvict them. That made it necessary for the statement to be


made in the House yesterday and the extremely generous statement about reopening compensation discussions, for which I thank the Minister of State.
I wish to make two points about Mr. Conlon's case. Although I have been attempting to study cases of miscarriages of justice, I cannot say that I am fully familiar with the Conlon case. However, I see parallels.
When reviewing possible miscarriages of justice the Home Office must take into account the atmosphere of the court where a particular conviction takes place. One cannot ignore the possibility that in the Confait case, for which I was responsible, the three defendants who have now been proved absolutely and totally innocent, were convicted in an atmosphere of great hostility against young people in London at that time. Allusions to that atmosphere were made throughout the case in 1972.
I am quite sure that cases tried in English courts which deal with violence by the IRA cannot be fully distinguished by an English jury, in the way that other cases can be distinguished, from feelings of dislike and prejudice. As a result, I believe that the Conlon case is not the only miscarriage of justice to have taken place in Britain. I am most unhappy about some of the convictions resulting from the Birmingham pub bombings.
Where the Home Office is reviewing a trial that has taken place in this sort of atmosphere that is a fact that Ministers and various officials who review these things ought properly to take into account. I know that the Home Office has always said that it can take only new evidence into account. It knows that that is not true because the Home Office changed the formulation to new evidence or other considerations of substance. Roy Jenkins, when he was Home Secretary, included that extra consideration into the examination of possible miscarriages of justice.
I urge the Minister to accept that both the atmosphere and the forensic evidence are a consideration of substance that should be taken into account by him.
There is a tendency for forensic evidence to be considered by the courts to have some mystical scientific status

which it does not have. The whole lesson of the Confait case was just that. The doctors talked to the court as though they were talking about exact scientific evidence. It has now become clear that they were not. It is clear to me from all I have heard about the scientific forensic evidence in the Conlon case that it falls four square into that category and is a proper matter for review.
I pay tribute to the Minister of State. In many ways in releasing Cooper and McMahon and in the statement that the Attorney-General made yesterday the Government have shown themselves to be highly sensitive to the reality that miscarriages of justice can take place. I urge the Minister of State, however, not to treat the Conlon case in any different category simply because Mr. Conlon is dead. I can assure the hon. And learned Gentleman that the hurt and the pain live on quite as much within the families of the victims of miscarriages of justice as they do in the individuals themselves. I add my voice to those of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West in urging the Minister to reconsider this case most carefully.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): The concern that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) have shown about this case is long standing. I respect them for their anxieties over the matter. As has been pointed out in the debate, that concern has been shared by other eminent people. I should also like to say how much I appreciate the kind words of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) about the Government in matters of this kind. It is precisely because of the context in time of this and other cases that it is important to restate clearly the functions of the Home Secretary with regard to individual cases where a miscarriage of justice is alleged to have occurred.
It is important that the comparative roles of the Executive and the judiciary should not be blurred. They should be clear. If they are not, I do not believe that the long-term interests of justice are in any way served.
Under our constitution the duty of administering justice in individual cases is placed upon the courts. Accordingly, while the Home Secretary has certain powers to intervene in a criminal case he must not exercise them in any way that might tend to usurp the functions of the courts. I regard that as a principle that is absolutely cardinal to the proper working of our constitution. What that means in practice is, as has been said in the debate, that the Home Secretary can consider intervening only if some significant new evidence or other material consideration of substance comes to light that has not already been before the courts. I stress that what has to come to light has to be new. If it is new, the Home Secretary can consider intervening. If it is not new, he is merely placing himself as some sort of court of appeal, which would be quite wrong.
What the Home Secretary may not do is review the decisions of the courts on the basis of facts or arguments already considered by them or in any way act as a further court of appeal. In particular, it would be quite wrong for him to use his powers of intervention merely because, if the decision had rested with him, he might have taken a different view of the facts. The Home Secretary cannot act merely on the basis of suggestion or opinion—even his own opinion.
As has been said in the debate, Mr. Conlon was convicted in 1976 of the unlawful possession of nitroglycerine, and was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment. Six others were convicted with him on identical charges. All applied for leave to appeal against their convictions and sentences, but their applications were dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
I assure the House that in considering the matter the fact that Mr. Conlon is dead has played no part, and will play no part whatsoever, in the Home Secretary's mind.
The circumstances leading to the convictions were as follows. On the evening of 3 December 1974, police officers were keeping watch on the west London home of Mrs. Anne Maguire, to whom Mr. Conlon was related, her husband, their four children and Mrs. Maguire's brother, Mr. William Smyth. At the time Mr. Conlon was staying there, and a friend of the Maguires, Mr. O'Neill, was also

Present that evening. As has been mentioned, Mr. Conlon had come to London only that day from Belfast, on hearing that his son Gerard had been arrested for complicity in the bombing of two public houses in Guildford.
At about 7.45 pm Mr. Conlon, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Smyth and Mr. O'Neill left the house. Police officers followed them to a public house but did not wait. About an hour later police officers called at the Maguires' house to inquire about IRA bombing incidents. The house was searched, but it is right to say that no explosives of any kind were found there or, indeed, in empty neighbouring houses that were searched later. The only evidence of substance found in the house was a pair of plastic disposable gloves, which Mrs. Maguire claimed that she wore to stop an ointment that she used for a skin disease getting around the house. These were taken for scientific examination.
Subsequently, the four men, Mrs. Maguire and the four children were taken to different police stations. Swabs of their hands and scrapings from their fingernails were taken and sent to the Royal Armament Research and Development Establishment at Woolwich, where they were tested by a technique known as "thin layer chromatography", which is designed to detect nitroglycerine. The tests proved positive for all except Mrs. Maguire and two of her children. However, tests on Mrs. Maguire's gloves were positive. All except the two children were charged.
As has been said, the case for the Crown rested almost entirely on expert evidence on the results of the chromatography tests. The defence challenged that evidence vigorously, fielding its own experts, including, as its main scientific witness, Mr. Yallop, who has been referred to. I stress that Mr. Yallop was a defence witness at the trial. The points that he made against the validity of the tests were made at the trial, with the full force of his reputation behind him. That fact was considered by the Court of Appeal. The defence argued that the tests used could not eliminate the possibility that some substance other than nitroglycerine was present and that further tests should have been made. The Crown, on the other hand, argued that that was not necessary, and brought evidence of


research which, it was claimed, showed that the possibility of innocent contamination was too remote to be seriously considered.
Not surprisingly, the appeals have also centred on the forensic evidence. Numerous grounds were put forward on behalf of Mr. Conlon and his co-defendants. In brief, they were that there was insufficient evidence to put to the jury and that the trial judge had given inadequate or incorrect directions to the jury about the significance and admissibility of the expert evidence for the Crown and the significance of that for the defence. The Court of Appeal considered these issues which were substantially the same issues as were put to my right hon. Friend and have been canvassed in the House today. The hearing lasted 10 days and the Court of Appeal delivered a judgment, the transcript of which runs to 53 pages. Lord Justice Roskill, who delivered the judgment, said:
We have considered all these seven applications individually in detail with the utmost care, as we hope the detailed terms of this long judgment will show, and in the light of the elaborate and most helpful arguments of counsel for all the applicants, for which we express our sincere gratitude. But at the end no member of this Court sees any reason for disturbing these convictions either on the basis that any of them is unsafe or unsatisfactory or that the learned judge was guilty of any non-direction or misdirection or that his summing-up was in any way unbalanced.
None the less, there are those who say, as has been said today, that Mr. Conlon and those convicted with him were innocent. Many points have been made on Mr. Conlon's behalf and I shall deal with some of them later.
I begin, however, by dealing with one persistent rumour in which there is no substance whatsoever. From time to time there have been reports to the effect that the men concerned in what has come to be known as the Balcombe Street seige have claimed responsibility for the offence for which Mr. Conlon and Mrs. Maguire were tried and imprisoned. That is not true. Those men claimed that they were responsible also for the Woolwich and Guildford bombings. Mr. Conlon and Mrs. Maguire were never thought to have been involved in those offences. Nor is the claim new. Indeed, it was the main ground of appeal put forward by those convicted of the Woolwich and

Guildford bombings and was unhesitatingly rejected by the Court of Appeal.
It is said, and has been pointed out today, that Mr. Conlon's recent arrival in this country to be near his son indicated that he was innocent of any intent to take part in the offence of which he was convicted. It may be that he travelled to this country with an innocent mind, but that does not mean that when he got here he did not take part in an offence. The Court of Appeal, to which this point was put when it was considering the matter, accepted that he had only recently arrived because of his son's arrest but commented that, whatever the period of his stay in the house, he must have known perfectly well what was going on and lent himself to the activities.
I recognise that those who feel disquiet about Mr. Conlon's case do so chiefly on account of what they see as deficiencies in the scientific evidence. Whatever doubts they or others may entertain, nothing new has been put forward that would justify my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in taking action.
Mr. Yallop, the main scientific witness for the defence, who used to work at Woolwich, where the tests were carried out, is now a private consultant. But he was the witness for the defence at the trial, his evidence was in favour of the defence and it was scrutinised at the time. He has been reported in the press—though I understand that he wishes to dissociate himself from these reports—as saying that the test used is not reliable and cannot be regarded as conclusive; it did not prove that the substance found was nitroglycerine; it might, for example, have been something present in tobacco smoke. As I said, I am not competent to comment on Mr. Yallop's scientific judgment. The real point is that none of this is new, since Mr. Yallop put precisely these points in his evidence at the trial.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Minister confirm that in the Confait case there was no new consideration of any kind and no new evidence put to the Home Office, although in that case it was happy to refer that matter back? Is it not true that the material consideration does not need to have the same property of newness, as it were—which it did not have in the Confait cas—as new evidence?

Mr. Brittan: It must be new, and I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. I regret to say that there is nothing new here. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest that if there were to be something new—if something new emerges—it would most certainly be considered with the care with which we consider any of these matters. However, the fact remains that neither new evidence nor a new consideration have arisen in this case at present.
While I respect the views of those hon. Members who have spoken, I have to say that it is for those reasons that at present there are no grounds on which my right hon. Friend would be justified in taking any action.

Orders of the Day — PAPER AND BOARD INDUSTRY

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Had the Minister taken the opportunity of replying to me when I asked him to earlier, it would not have been necessary for me to rise now and to make the short, five minute contribution that I am about to make. I am indebted to my hon. Friends and others who have made it possible.
SOGAT, the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades, produced a publication some weeks ago on the paper industry, entitled "Action now: Assessment of Trends and Implications for the British Paper and Board Industry". That report graphically drew attention to the considerable problems in a number of sectors of that industry, which over the next few months and, indeed, the coming years, will have the effect of destroying many of the job opportunities in the industry that currently exist.
I want to talk specifically about one of those areas—the problem of energy prices. Energy prices are becoming a problem not only for the British paper and board manufacturing industry but also for much of other manufacturing industry in the country. If the Minister were to take the opportunity to look at today's copy of The Sun newspaper, he will see an article headed "Steel Chiefs Lash High-Price Tories—Energy costs are 'destroying jobs'" It states:
The Government was yesterday accused of destroying industry and jobs by pushing up gas

and electricity prices. The chiefs of Britain's State and private steel industry joined forces to make the blistering attack on Government policy. British Steel boss Ian MacGregor and the leader of the private steelmakers Alec Mortimer called for an urgent meeting with Industry Secretary Sir Keith Joseph to discuss the soaring costs of energy. Gas prices are set to rise by 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation and electricity prices by 5 per cent. more over the next three years. But in a letter to Sir Keith, Mr. Mortimer, the director-general of the British Independent Steel Producers Association, warned:
'The very survival of the UK private steel industry'—
in this case it is steel, although I am discussing paper and board—
'depends significantly on a more rational and commercial UK energy policy'.
The problems in the paper industry stem in part from the inordinately high cost of energy that is paid by the major manufacturers in the United Kingdom. The British Paper and Board Manufacturers Association has produced what I can only describe as a particularly interesting document relating to the energy costs paid by most of our European partners. It also refers to other paper and board manufacturers in different parts of the world. I do not know whether the Minister has seen that document, but in reading it into the record, I can only say that it shows frightening differentials in the cost of energy in Norway and the Scandinavian countries, Canada and North America as against the United Kingdom.
On fuel oil, industrial users in this country pay 11p per litre. In the United States, they pay 4·6p, in Canada 3·8p and in Norway 8½p. If we take gas per therm for industrial use, manufacturers in the United Kingdom pay 23·6p per therm. In the United States it is 12·1p—just over half—in Canada 7·2p and in other parts of the world it is even cheaper. That is before price reductions have been awarded on the basis of continuous process use.
Clearly, great differentials exist in the pricing of energy among the major paper and board manufacturers in different parts of the world.
The British paper and board industry is the sixth largest consumer of energy and, according to its calculations—and those of the union, which has several thousand members in the industry—the consumption of energy in the industry at cost is now even greater than the amount


of money expended by those industries on labour. Therefore, any statements made by the Secretary of State for Industry and other Ministers on the question of workers being required to tighten their belts should also take into account the fact that considerably greater amounts of money are spent on another vital component in the production of paper board. In my own constituency, Thames Board Mills is the largest consumer of energy in the county, and will be so when the latest addition to the mill has been made.
My question in the debate—in which I have had to cut my contribution considerably—is: how is it possible for a manufacturer in this country, buying energy at Xp for whatever it may be, to compete with an American, a Canadian and a Norwegian manufacturer of an identical product buying at perhaps half or one-third of that price?
The Minister should address himself specifically to the problem of energy prices and the fact that British manufacturers are now paying through the teeth and forcing themselves into a position of lack of competitiveness.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a word about the paper industry in what may prove to be the final minutes of this all-night, marathan debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
The paper industry is extremely important in and around my constituency, with three sturdy independent firms which are well managed and, I am happy to say, enjoy excellent industrial relations.
I shall not detain the House with a lengthy explanation of the problems of the paper industry, many of which it shares with other industries. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) and others who took part in yesterday's debate were able to bring a number of facts to the attention of the House. I should like to concentrate on two very special matters of significance to the paper industry about which I believe the Government could do something.
The first is concerned with energy. Inevitably, the paper industry is a major consumer of energy. In many other countries where its competitors are, energy is

very heavily subsidised, and our own industry does not benefit from the fact that we are producers of oil on a major scale.
I hope that the Government will conduct a very serious review of the energy position as it applies to major industrial consumers of energy. In the short term, I believe that it might be possible to arrange for a national tariff on energy with an appropriate discount structure which would recognise the problems of these major consumers. In this case, it would be of particular help if any such policy could be backdated to the start of the year.
In the longer term, we must consider making a much more generous contribution to energy-saving schemes within the industry which could do a great deal for the national economy.
There has been an influx of new competitors from abroad—not traditional competitors, with whom our industry can cope very competently, but new competitors, principally from Belgium, Holland and France. These countries have increased their exports to this country by over 100 per cent., in many cases within the last year. It is believed that these industries are heavily subsidised and are carrying out a Japanese style blitz to grab a share of our market, with prices which many people in the industry believe to be indefensible in terms of normal consumer costs.
I hope that the Government will demonstrate today, when my hon. Friend replies to the debate, that they are determined to take all possible steps to defend the interests of this vital industry. There is great concern that the printing industry is in danger of striking itself out of work. In the long term, that will have a serious effect on the jobs of those who work in the paper industry. I hope that people in the printing industry will take on board the importance of the struggle that the paper industry is now facing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. David Mitchell): The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) are to be congratulated on their tenacity in securing this debate at this hour after an all-night sitting. I noticed my hon. Friend coming


into the Chamber regularly during the night.
The Government are very much aware of the difficulties that the industry faces. On 21 July, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State saw senior representatives of the industry. The Department maintains an ongoing contact with the trade association, the British Paper and Board Industry Federation. There is no lack of understanding of the position and the real challenge that the industry faces.
It is an industry that is important to the national economy. Paper and board, together with the allied industries of printing, publishing and packaging, account for 8·3 per cent. of manufacturing industry's contribution to the gross domestic product and employ about half a million people, some 60,000 of them in the paper industry. It has a turnover of £ 1,300 million. It has a good labour relations record and its record as an industry entitles it to respect. I salute it. It is highly capital-intensive, much of it working round the clock, with a special place for specialist producers, among which I cannot fail to mention Portals Mills in my constituency, which prints a piece of paper best known to all hon. Members—namely, bank note paper. There are the giants of the industry such as Reid's, Bowater's and Wiggins Teape.
The industry is in the forefront of competition from imports, especially from North America, Scandinavia and the EEC. Even before the Second World War, 30 per cent. of consumption in Britain was imported, so imports are not a new phenomenon. The main increase in imports has been in bulk low-grade newsprint, Kraft liner, some types of printing and wrapping paper. These items can be produced more economically in a large-scale integrated plant in Scandinavia or North America. In such mills newly made pulp is fed directly on to a paper machine. This gives significant production advantages.
Since the 1960s, the Scandinavians in particular have sought to exploit this natural advantage by adding to their wood products and moving increasingly from pulp production towards paper production. Unlike North America and Scandinavia, the United Kingdom has had limited timber resources and the

price of North American wood is substantially lower than that of the United Kingdom, or even of Scandinavia.
The United Kingdom depends for over 40 per cent. of its raw materials on imported pulps supplied by overseas competitors. This is not an inconsiderable difficulty for the industry. It has reacted by concentrating on the specialist and higher value papers. That must be the right way in which to proceed. There are a number of substantial success stories, including Wiggins Teape's success in its development of carbonless copy papers. There are smaller and highly efficient companies.
We are discussing an industry with considerable strength. It is also an industry that faces strong and growing opposition and competition from overseas. That competition is likely to increase. The paper industry is not alone in that respect. The Government understand the problems faced by companies in the industry, especially in sections of newsprint. I know that these sectors of the industry rely heavily on waste paper. They are now having a difficult time. They face tough competition from imports of virgin pulp-based grades, particularly Kraft liner. Kraft liner sets the price in the market place for the United Kingdom made waste-based grades, which are traditionally sold at a discount. The strength of sterling has put a great deal of pressure on margins.
In the packaging board sector, demand has been particularly weak. However, Thames Board is pressing ahead with its new £ 100 million machine in the hon. Gentleman's constituency of Workington. The prospects in this sector may be difficult in the short term, but the investment, which is securing substantial Government aid, will prove rewarding.
The newsprint producers face particular difficulties. I accept that margins in the industry are under great pressure as a result of import competition, inflation, interest rates, the strength of sterling, and in particular, energy costs. Of the total production costs of the industry, 10 to 15 per cent. are derived from energy costs. The hon. Gentleman, and others in the industry, have highlighted the relationship between the cost of energy


and the industry's ability to compete. I understand that point.
We face a particular problem, namely, that this country has pursued a policy of conserving our natural energy supplies from the North Sea. The United States of America has taken a virtual non-conservationist view. In the long term, the United States of America will face serious problems. The question arises of how far we should mitigate our correct conservationist policy, which was designed to ensure that we did not use up our scarce natural resource within a short time, and so run the risk of facing disastrous consequences in the longer term. Canada and the United States of America run that risk.
I listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I shall discuss them with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, who is very much in touch with the industry. Several important points were raised by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson). In the light of their remarks, we shall pay particular attention to this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East drew attention to the loss of market share.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I do not wish to give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have already tried the patience of the House by speaking for so long.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to press this point, but we have not received the substantial response that industry and the trade unions expected. Many hon. Members feel that this debate is the key debate. What can the Government do to protect the 7,000 jobs that will probabay disappear before the House returns after

the recess? That question must be answered this morning. We cannot be expected to go away with a statement to the effect that the Minister is in touch with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. That will not resolve the difficulty. Will the Minister write to members of the paper industry group during the recess, and make a statement about the type of action that the Government will take during the recess to protect those jobs?

Mr. Mitchell: I shall give careful consideration to the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. I have been trying to deal with a point raised by the hon. Member for Fife, East. He drew attention to the loss of market share and to the direct relationship between the printing industry and the market available to the British paper industry. That is an immensely important point that should not be overlooked. The printing industry in Britain has a very low level of productivity. It is riddled with restrictive practices. As a result, the cost of printing in Britain is way above that of our competitors. Much of the printing that could be done in Britain is being lost to continental countries, and even to America. Where there should have been a semi-captive market for British paper manufacturers, that market is being denied because of inefficiency, lack of productivity and the high cost of restrictive practices in the printing industry.
I hope that hon. Members who have intervened will take that on board.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 36.

Division No. 443]
AYES
[10.25 am


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Bright, Graham
Chapman, Sydney


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Brinlon, Tim
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Brittan, Leon
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Costain, Sir Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brooke, Hon Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Bell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Bruce-Gardyne, John
Dover, Denshore


Berry, Hon Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Buck, Antony
Durant, Tony


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Bulmer, Esmond
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Butler, Hon Adam
Elliott, Sir William


Blackburn, John
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Emery, Peter


Boscawitn, Hon Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Eyre, Reginald




Fairgrieve, Russell
Luce, Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Neil
Silvester, Fred


Finsberg, Geoffrey
MacGregor, John
Sims, Roger


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Major, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marland, Paul
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marlow, Tony
Speller, Tony


Fry, Peter
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Garel-Jonea, Tristan
Mawby, Ray
Squire, Robin


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Patrick
Stanley, John


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mellor, David
Stevens, Martin


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Strading Thomas, J.


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Tebbit, Norman


Hamilton, Hon Archle (Eps'm &amp; Ew'll)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Moate, Roger
Thompson, Donald


Hawkins, Paul
Monro, Hector
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Hawksley, Warren
Montgomery, Fergus
Thornton, Malcolm


Henderson, Barry
Moore, John
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Trippier, David


Hicks, Robert
Mudd, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hill, James
Murphy, Christopher
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Myles, David
Waddington, David


Hooson, Tom
Needham, Richard
Wakeham, John


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Neubert, Michael
Waldegrave, Hon William


Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Newton, Tony
Walker, Rt Hon Peter (Worcester)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E perihshire)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
Waller, Gary


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pawsey, James
Ward, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Percival, Sir Ian
Watson, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pollock, Alexander
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, George
Wheeler, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Prior, Rt Hon James
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kilfedder, James A.
Proctor, K. Harvey
Whitney, Raymond


King, Rt Hon Tom
Raison, Timothy
Wickenden, Keith


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lang, Ian
Renton, Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Lawson, Nigel
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Le Marchant, Spencer
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rifkind, Malcolm
Mr. John Cope and


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.




NOES


Alton, David
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
Skinner, Dennis


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Haynes, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Heffer, Eric S.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Hooley, Frank
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Deakins, Eric
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
White, Frank R. (Bury &amp; Radcliffe)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNally, Thomas
Young, David (Bolton East)


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Bob



Dixon, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Dubs, Alfred
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Mr. Michael English.


Fin, Gerard

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Christopher Price: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there any way that I can seek your protection? Before the debate started I received a letter from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), whose debate was next on the stocks before the closure, saying that he intended to make personal remarks about me during his speech. As a result of the closure, I have been prevented from replying—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. That is a good end-of-term joke, but it is not a point of order.

Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

Consolidated Fund

[Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

Clause 1

ISSUE OUT OF THE CONSOLIDATED FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 MARCH 1981

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: It will not be outwith your memory, Mr. Weatherill, that either last year or the year before we instituted an innovation when debating the various clauses of the Consolidated Fund Bill—a useful innovation started by Conservative Members when they were in opposition. It would be wrong if important precedents of that nature, started by Conservative Members who are now Ministers of the Crown, were not carried on. It is only because of habit that discussion of the Committee stage of the Bill has fallen into desuetude.
I wish to encourage hon. Members to follow that tradition once more because it is an important tradition—

The Chairman: Order. The only speeches in order in this debate are those concerned with the question whether the clause be affirmed or rejected, and nothing else.

Mr. Price: Thank you for that intensely helpful intervention, Mr. Weathcrill. I should simply like to make a short speech because I know that a number of my colleagues are anxious to intervene. I do not want to detain the Committee for long in arguing that clause I should be rejected.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman able to tell the House what the clause actually says?

Mr. Price: I am happy to respond to the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) who takes such a close interest in these debates on the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. It would be for the convenience of the House if I were to read clause 1. I shall not detain the House with the preamble which begins

Most Gracious Sovereign.
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects
If I were to do so—

The Chairman: Order. That definitely would not be in order. We are discussing clause 1.

Mr. Price: If I were to do that, I would be out of order. Clause 1 is headed
Grant out of the Consolidated Fund".
It reads:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 the sum of £41,601,455,200.
That is our money.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is the taxpayers' money.

Mr. Price: It is the taxpayers' money, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) says. It is proper on these occasions to make out a case that this £ 41,000 million should not be spent and this clause should be rejected until hon. Members have heard a number of explanations from the Government about the way in which it is proposed to spend the money. This money refers to a wide number of headings—

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss how the money is to be spent. It is simply in order to discuss whether the clause is accepted or rejected. This is a very narrow debate. I warn the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who may seek to take part about that.

Mr. Price: I recall very well the hour and a debate on this narrow clause in a previous year. I shall try to stick simply to the argument that this £ 41,000 million should not be spent and, for that reason, the clause rejected.

Mr. Skinner: There is no question but that this is a lot of money. Even though this is a very narrow debate, it is nevertheless one hell of a lot of money. I am concerned about the way in which the money is being spent, even though it is only part of a narrow debate. I wonder whether it would help the Committee if my hon. Friend were to explain, as briefly as possible, some of the things on which


this money is being spent. Has it anything to do with the money that is being wasted by the Minister for Social Security in appointing private investigators who have apparently discovered no loss or only losses of small amounts of money? Should that be part of our discussion?

The Chairman: I do not wish the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to be tempted to follow that line. It is definitely not in order.

Mr. Skinner: It is a lot of money.

Mr. Price: I agree, Mr. Weatherill, that if I were to follow my hon. Friend down that road I might stand in jeopardy of being called to order by your good self. It was, however, an interesting point and one that has enlightened the Committee a great deal. I am making a serious point. This Bill has come before us just before the Summer Recess, as it normally does. We have had a long debate on Second Reading and we now have to decide whether to accept or reject clause 1. Until we have had a series of explanations from the Treasury Bench about a number of economic matters, there is no way in which we can make up our minds properly as responsible Members whether it would be proper to accept the Clause—

The Chairman: Order. We had that long discussion throughout the night and it is not in order now to debate it again.

Mr. Price: rose—

Mr. Michael English: On a point of order. We have not yet actually discussed this £41,000 million at any time—

The Chairman: Order. But that is what the Consolidated Fund debates are all about.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. May I seek your guidance about the Committee stage of this Bill? The Order Paper seems to have omitted any reference to the remaining stages being taken today. That has limited the tabling of amendments. Would you facilitate manuscript amendments so that they can be debated in the usual way in Committee?

The Chairman: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. If he looks carefully at the Order Paper, he will see that it definitely states that remaining stages may also be taken. On his second point, it is not in order to move amendments in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

Mr. Price: Thank you for your response to those points of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have said that this £41,601,455,200 has been adequately discussed on Second Reading.

Mr. Walter Harrison: This is the first that I have heard of it.

Mr. Price: I have not been here throughout the Second Reading debate, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) has. I understand from him that he has never even heard this figure mentioned.
Whether it has been done by tradition or not in the past, having discussed the principle of the Bill on Second Reading—on a wide range of issues, I may say—in Committee, which no one wants to delay—

Mr. Skinner: It has just crossed my mind that the Second Reading of a major Bill such as the Consolidated Fund Bill is normally debated for at least a day. This Bill is about a tremendous amount of money. The figure of £41,000 million is a lot of cash in anyone's terms. What worries me is that there is normally a gap of several days after Second Reading so that one can read Hansard and take account of what was said on Second Reading. I do not know why, but that is the way that this daft system works here. Now we have this debate on this tremendous pile of money—the biggest amount ever debated in the House of Commons. It is not the Government's money. As the Prime Minister constantly tells us, Governments have no money. It is all taxpayers' money. I represent some taxpayers in Bolsover and I want to know what has gone off in that Second Reading. Some of the scheduled debates did not take place. I know for a fact that my hon. Friend did not get a chance to speak. I have with me a list which indicates that many of the debates selected initially by Mr. Speaker have not taken place. Therefore, what we need to do—

The Chairman: Order. This has absolutely nothing to do with clause 1 of the Bill. What the hon. Member is saying is going back to what might have been said on Second Reading had he managed to catch the eye of the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Price: That was an intervention.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it was an intervention. My hon. Friend will have a chance to reply to it or to make any further explanations that are deemed necessary by him. However, my point of order concerns the inability of Opposition Members to oppose. According to all the very important textbooks that Members read before they come here, we are supposed to have the ability to oppose at all times. We should not be gagged. We are here to oppose day in and day out, throughout every hour possible. That is what we are doing here.
What I am saying, on a point of order, is that I have not had a chance, nor has any hon. Member, to read what has happened on Second Reading. When such a lot of money as this is being spent, hon. Members have the right to know what has been said on Second Reading. What I am saying to you, Mr. Weatherill, on a point of order, is that surely, if we have not had a chance to read what has taken place, there ought to be a little more licence given when decisions are made about whether Members are in order. Let us face it: we have clause 1 of the Bill and a sum of £ 41,000 million, and here is a bloke from the Treasury on the Front Bench who has never even got up and said anything.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member rose on a point of order and is now making a speech. I think that I can help him by saving him from the need to say anything else. From early yesterday afternoon, and throughout the night, he has had the opportunity, if he had so wished, to be here and to have taken part in the debate. It is not in order to discuss those matters in any sense on the motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You made a remark about my not being present. If you

check my record, you will find that I am here more often than you have been—even when you were a Whip.

The Chairman: I did not say that the hon. Member was not present. I said that he had the opportunity.

Mr. Skinner: My debate was not reached.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Is it your opinion that the whole of this debate may be a mistake? On the Order Paper the motion merely says:
Remaining stages may also be taken",
It is customary to take them on the day after the Second Reading. I should have thought that perhaps the Government Whips thought that they would get this through on the nod. It strikes me that the Government Whips may have made a terrible error.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I think that we can clear up this whole matter, if I may enlighten the House. Earlier this afternoon we passed the business motion which made it perfectly in order for these remaining stages to be taken now.

Mr. English: It is still a mistake.

Mr. Price: I think that I was on my feet, Mr. Weatherill, before all that happened. I do not dispute what you have said. I accept completely that when the Government put on the Order Paper
Remaining stases may also be taken",
that is a signal to Members that they should be here and ready to discuss these matters. However, I think that what is important on this issue is that, although there may be agreements between the two Front Benches when the Order Paper says
Remaining stages may also be taken.
that cannot deprive Back Benchers of their right fully to discuss particular clauses during a Committee stage if that appears to be proper and the right thing to do. That is what I am attempting to do now, in urging the rejection of clause 1.

Mr. Skinner: I have just been reading the business motion passed yesterday, on the nod, as it were. It says nothing about the necessity for the Treasury spokesman


to rise to speak on clause 1 and tell us what is happening to this £41,000 million. All that it says is that the stages may be taken together. We are not disputing that. I am not, and nor are any of my hon. Friends, in dispute about that.
It is high time we had an explanation from the Treasury Bench. Why cannot the Minister explain where the money is going? It was not mentioned on Second Reading. One would expect a Treasury Bench spokesman who used to edit a Right-wing newspaper to jump up straight away and want to explain why all this money is being spent. There is nothing in the business motion that says that he cannot explain what the £41,000 million is all about. The taxpayers in Bolsover and throughout the country want to know.

The Chairman: Perhaps I can help the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) and the rest of the Committee if I read the following extract from "Erskine May":
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed".
On clause 1 stand part we can discuss only whether the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Price: I take that point, Mr. Weatherill. I do not dispute your ruling. All that I am trying to do, in the face of a number of points of order, is to argue that clause 1 should not stand part.
On a clause relating to expenditure of such magnitude, I should have expected an immediate intervention from the Treasury Branch. If I had not risen, the matter would have been dealt with on the nod. The Minister knows that perfectly well. He hoped that £41,601,455,200 would be passed on the nod, without any explanation from him of what it was all about.

Mr. Skinner: Normally on Consolidated Fund Bills we have a full day's debate, starting at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, perhaps after statements, a few points of order and applications for Adjournment debates under Standing Order No. 9 by a few hon. Members with fish to fry. Then we get on to the Bill at around 4 o'clock, perhaps half-past four or 5 o'clock. But yesterday the Government chose also to put down another motion, which greatly reduced the amount of time

available for us to discuss the Bill. There was a motion in the Prime Minister's name:
That, at its rising on Friday, this House do adjourn till Monday 27th October"—
it sounds like a recess for Christmas as well—
and that this House shall not adjourn on Friday until Mr. Speaker"—

The Chairman: Order. That has nothing to do with whether the clause stand part. We must confine ourselves wholly and exclusively to that.

Mr. Skinner: I was here when there looked like being a vote at about 9 o'clock—

Mr. Harrison: Last night or this morning?

Mr. Skinner: We had better get it right. It was 9 pm as of Monday, but of course we are still on this day's sitting, which is Monday in theory, although the calendar says that it is Tuesday. There was nearly a vote at 9 pm. The point is that we did not start on the Bill until then. It was probably the shortest Consolidated Fund Bill Second Reading debate that we have had in the 10 years that I have been here.
It is a good idea to debate the clauses—very narrowly, in accordance with the Chairman's instructions—for the reason that I have just advanced, that we had no chance to start the debate until 9 o'clock last night. Therefore, we are making up some of the lost ground. It is extremely important that my hon. Friend gets on to the matter of the £41,000 million and the little bit extra. It is important that the taxpayer gets to know what is happening to the money. But this lousy Tory Government will not tell the British public what they are doing with the money. The Government tell me that they are cutting defence expenditure. I have been reading this morning—

The Chairman: Order. We cannot have interventions of this length. They are really speeches.

11 a.m.

Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. I found the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover most illuminating. However, I agree that if I were to follow my hon. Friend's line of


argument I should be ruled out of order. I might stand in jeopardy—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Is it not wholly improper for an hon. Member to make assumptions in advance about your rulings?

Mr. Price: I resile from those words, Mr. Weatherill. I simply say that I might have been ruled out of order if I had gone down that particular road. I agree that all that the Committee is entitled to discuss and vote on is whether we accept that there shall be expenditure of the size stated in the Bill. That is the only matter that we are properly able to discuss. It is a question whether we accept the clause or reject it.
It is most difficult—although an effort is being made—to discuss this clause without discussing the words in it. The clause refers to the sum of £41,601,455,200. I believe that any other democratic assembly in the world would be astonished if it were to find that during the Committee stage of a Bill a Parliament of any kind accepted or rejected a clause this magnitude on the nod. That is what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had been rather assuming. I took that to be his attitude, judging by his slightly sunken posture on the Government Front Bench.
It is absolutely proper that we should discuss this matter and I recommend to the Committee that this clause do not stand part of the Bill, for the following reasons. My first reason—and it is a traditional reason—is that it is quite impossible for us to come to a decision about whether it is proper to spend this money until we get much more information from the sedentary Financial Secretary about the context of the entire clause.
I agree with you Mr. Weatherill, that if I were to go into too great detail, or any detail at all, about the make-up of this £41,601,455,200—

Mr. English: My hon. Friend is quite right in rehearsing the ruling that the Chairman gave. The Chairman quoted from "Erskine May" and said that the subject of expenditure might not be discussed. There is every good reason, I should have thought, why the procedure

under which that expenditure is authorised in the Bill should be discussed. That is not excluded by "Erskine May".

Mr. Price: I thank my hon. Friend. His encyclopaedic knowledge of these matters is so much greater than mine that I am sure that the slight respite afforded by my brief remarks this morning will enable him to address the Committee on procedural matters. I hope that he does that.
Although I am not allowed to break down the sum and go into details—we are discussing the Consolidated Fund—the Committee is entitled to an explanation of the meaning of clause 1 from the Treasury Bench. If we do not get that explanation, Committee stages of Bills are turned into a farce. It has been traditional to pass these clauses on the nod, but a Government are now in power who want to scrutinise expenditure very closely.
I shall bring my remarks to a close very shortly, Mr. Weatherill, because many of my hon. Friends wish to speak on the clause and I do not want to stand in their way. However, before I finish I must stress that, on every stand part debate, Ministers normally explain what the clauses seek to achieve. If the Financial Secretary is minded to remain seated throughout this discussion, it will be a scandal.

Mr. Skinner: Will my hon. Friend give way? There is another reason why we have departed, not from precedent but from the normal style of dealing with this part of the Bill. The procedure changed three of four years ago—

Mr. Price: Three years.

Mr. Skinner: One morning three years ago, I heard the radio announcer say that the House was still sitting. We all know that that does not mean that every right hon. and hon. Member is here. That is a bit of a gimmick. It stated on the radio that we were breaking with precedent—

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.
My hon. Friend has misquoted what was said on the radio. The announcer said that MPs had been up all night. That was not true. Only a few hon. Members had been up all night—

Mr. Skinner: Did it say "some"?

Mr. English: No, it said simply that MPs had been up all night—

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss whether we have been up for one night, two nights or three nights. It is in order only to discuss whether we are to pass the clause. Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to put the Question and then we could take a decision. The Question is, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill—

Mr. Price: No.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend is in the middle of a speech.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that you will not put the Question unless someone has moved and carried the closure which, somehow, I suspect they may be unable to do at the moment.

Mr. Price: Perhaps I may continue my speech. I was in the process of drawing my remarks to a close when my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made a useful interruption.

Mr. Skinner: I had not quite finished it. The point I was trying to explain to my hon. Friend, who has been dealing with many matters in the past 24 hours—matters concerning the Attorney-General, and doing a splendid job in that regard—was that suddenly the Opposition, including the right hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary—I am not sure whether he is right honourable—

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Nigel Lawson): indicated dissent.

Mr. Skinner: He is not, but he is trying hard.
At that time, the whole world seemed to be upside down. The radio stated that the House of Commons was debating the Committee stage of the Consolidated Fund Bill. At that time, I had been a Member of Parliament for seven years and knew that nothing like that had happened before. It was said that Labour Whips were searching for Labour Members to vote for the closure. You, Mr. Weatherill, probably remember the occasion. It was a maverick operation.

The Chairman: I remind the hon. Gentleman again that that has nothing to do with the question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. It is an abuse of our procedures to intervene at length on matters that we are not discussing.

Mr. Price: A number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, and I am anxious to hear the Financial Secretary attempt to rebut my arguments.
It is unreasonable for the House to pass a clause involving £41,601 million without an explanation from the Government about the policies on which it is based.

The Chairman: Order. Before further interventions occur, I remind the Committee that it would not be in order for the Minister either to go into detail on the matter. The issue is simply whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis: It is unusual to have a clause stand part debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) reminded us, it is not unique. This is the third occasion on which we have had such a debate since my hon. Friend has been in the House. It is not the second. When such a debate takes place, the Opposition consider that there is a good reason for it. The reason today must be well known to the Government.
The debate and closure on Second Reading are matters of tradition. During the debate hon. Members endeavour to raise items of specific expenditure.
I wish to deal with the principle of appropriation in clause 1. Similar debates took place in 1977, 1971 and 1961. The occasion before that was in 1913. It appears that such debates are occurring with increasing rapidity. In 1961 the late Hugh Gaitskell participated in the debate, as did Lord Diamond. In 1977, the then Conservative Opposition used the opportunity to force the Prime Minister to come to the House to make a statement on security. No doubt that was an important occasion and serious matters required the attendance of the Prime Minister. I was not here, so I cannot comment too closely on what took place in 1977. But hon. Members succeeded in getting the Prime Minister to come to the House. I have read the report of the debate.

Mr. Christopher Price: We are all very unhappy that my hon. Friend was not with us on that occasion. However, I was here on that occasion. We had a considerable debate, largely raised by Opposition Members in Committee on the Consolidated Fund Bill. It was directed, through intermittent points of order, to whether the Prime Minister should come to the House and make a statement about security. I think that we have been impeccable today in keeping within the rules of order. My hon. Friend has properly cited precedents for a debate on clause 1 stand part. Although he was not with us in 1977, we would have wished him to be present. However, as I said, he is correct in citing these precedents.

Mr. Davis: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I was also present on that occasion. My predecessor ruled, as I have ruled, and I repeat yet again, that hon. Members may discuss only whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. They may not go into detail of any kind.

Mr. Davis: I accept your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. I was only seeking to explain why I do not think that it lies in the Government's mouth to complain about Opposition Members seeking a debate on clause 1 stand part.
Turning to the clause, I should express disagreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price). I am sad to express such disagreement in view of his kind remarks about me. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend in opposing clause 1. I take this step, unusual as it may be from these Benches, especially as I sometimes act as a Whip for the Opposition, because I regard this as an important clause. It may surprise my hon. Friends that I step forward to support the Government, but, as I said, this is an important clause. Clearly, I shall have to give my reasons for taking this most unusual course of suggesting that the Opposition would be ill-advised to vote against the clause.
I must correct my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West on one point. He was mistaken when he said that clause 1 provides that money "shall" be spent. It does not say that

money "shall" be spent or made available. It say that money "may" be made available. There is a world of difference between the interpretation of "shall" and that of "may". I shall not take up the time of the House by reiterating the admirable explanation of the meaning of "may" put forward in the debate in 1961 by some of our most illustrious predecessors. I shall turn straight away to the effect of not approving the clause.
As I understand it—if I am wrong, I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will correct me—if we do not approve clause 1, a number of people who are employed by the Government will not be paid because the money will not be available for them to be paid. My hon. Friends might take pleasure in the prospect of some Ministers not being paid. However, it would affect others as well. Even though there seemed to be some clash between you, Mr. Weatherill, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, when I think he was seeking to presume a little on the prerogative of the Chair, I think that he would be most unhappy if you were not paid. Yet, as I understand it, if we do not approve clause 1, the Chairman will not be paid. It would not stop there. No doubt hon. Members would not be paid, but they presumably would have savings on which they could draw. The effect of not approving the clause will be that thousands of civil servants will not be paid.

Mr. English: Is it not possible that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister will get her way in that, instead of being defeated in the Cabinet, if the clause were not passed, teachers would not be paid either?

Mr. Davis: I had considered that point, but I decided not to make it because I believe that teachers are paid by local government and I am not quite clear—

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not now go into any detail because, as I have already pointed out in quoting from Erskine May, that is not in order.

Mr. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. I hope that you will bring me back to the paths of righteousness if


I stray again. I took the precaution of reading "Erskine May" before this debate began. However, it is the first time that I have read that section of "Erskine May", because I have never taken part in the Committee stage debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill before. Therefore, it is possible that I shall stray out of order, but I am sure that you will bring me back if I do. I thank you for that correction.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I agree with my hon. Friend's argument that the effect of clause 1 would be to make possible certain disbursements that are highly desirable. That is an argument in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill. However, is my hon. Friend really saying that because of that we should overlook the possibility that some of the disbursements may not be so desirable or not desirable at all? Does my hon. Friend think that we ought to be in favour of the clause standing part even though, apparently, we are not allowed to refer to any of the undesirable possibilities that may arise as a result of the clause?

Mr. Davis: I do not take that view. I believe that clause 1, like many other matters that we must consider in this House, is like the curate's egg. It is good in parts and it is bad in parts. It is for each hon. Member to make up his own mind about whether on balance the good outweighs the bad. In my view, the effect of not agreeing that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill would be very serious on a lot of people who can ill-afford it. However, Mr. Weatherill, I shall not describe them. Indeed, in some cases the effect would be tragic. I therefore urge my hon. Friends not to pursue their opposition to the Government's policies to the point of voting aganst clause 1.

Mr. Skinner: I listened closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who no doubt will be able to explain more fully why he felt it necessary to propose the rejection of the clause. There is no doubt that this is a fine balance. Like most things in life, we must find the right balance. As I understood it, my hon. Friend was saying that we should reject the clause on the basis that no explanation has been given.

It could be that at by doing that, and by defeating the Government, we would throw out the baby with the bath water. I am not sure who concocted that phrase.

Mr. Walter Harrison: A midwife.

Mr. Skinner: It must have been a midwife—

The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please address his remarks to me?

Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Weatherill. I suppose that on every occasion the Chairman is bound to be right. I was saying that perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) did not get the gist of what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was saying. He said that he wants the money to be spent on all the worthwhile projects contained within this massive amount of money—£41,000 million—which ought to be scrutinised, especially as the Government came to power on the basis of scrutinising every little item and every penny of taxpayers' money.
Of course, the Government have no money. It all belongs to the taxpayers, as we are constantly reminded. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West was asking us to reject the clause on the basis that we have not received a proper explanation. It is that kind of balance. I do not believe that there is that much difference between my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford is now making a fine contribution as to why this matter should be discussed in the way that it is being discussed, and why these precedents are being broken more often. That is really a tautology—

Mr. Harrison: That is a good word.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, it is.

Mr. Mikardo: It is a pleonasm actually.

Mr. Skinner: Well, it is something else—

The Chairman: Order. Mr. Terry Davis.

Mr. Davis: As you know, Mr. Weatherill, I cannot answer my hon. Friend in detail. I listened most closely to my hon. Friend the Member for


Lewisham, West and I felt that he was wrong in arguing that we should not pass the clause on the ground that there has not been adequate discussion of the detail. I understand that whenever we have a Second Reading of a Consolidated Fund Bill, the closure is moved and the Government bring in their Back Benchers in order to make it effective, so that they can move on to the next stage of the Bill.
I recognise that many Conservative Members have stayed through the night and come in to support their Government, and I respect them for it. In view of what happens every year, I do not think it fair to say that we shall vote against the clause on the ground that there has not been an adequate opportunity to explore the details. I agree that there has not been an adequate opportunity to explore the details, but it would be going too far in pursuit of that argument to vote against the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is mistaken in thinking that the quotation about throwing out the baby with the bath water came from the midwife. It came from that most prolific source of quotations, the one always listed as Anon. Anon has been responsible for most of the famous quotations.

Mr. English: I must defend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from the assertion that he said that the phrase was invented by a midwife. That assertion came from the Deputy Chief Opposition Whip.

Mr. Davis: I make no comment on the Deputy Chief Whip's learning. All I can say is that, from my knowledge of English literature, it comes from Anon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover is right in saying that it is a matter of balance. In the Labour Party we are accustomed to taking our decisions, at the end of a closely argued debate, on a matter of balance. I do not declare myself to be in total opposition to my hon. Friends. I am simply saying that on balance it would be wrong to throw out the good parts of Government expenditure as well as the bad parts. There are, of course, some items to which they would object. They could explain their objections if we were able to debate the matter, but that is not possible. It is

not possible to amend the Bill and take out the things with which we disagree. We have to make up our minds on balance whether it is right or wrong to vote for the clause.

Mr. Michael Welsh: If we accept the principle that there are good and bad parts and that the good parts can be implemented, is it not a fact that as years go by the Government of the day will always implement things without being questioned in the House of Commons? Is it not vital that the Government should come to this Chamber to discuss their spending? Now that we have some new young lads in the Chamber, would it not be worth while to throw it out, so that we can show that we can make any Government accountable to this Chamber for their spending—

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss the good parts or the bad parts. It is in order only to discuss clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Davis: I understand that, Mr. Weatherill, and I was not intending to pursue the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh).
It is not only people who would not be paid. Most important of all, many sections of industry would suffer if we did not approve the clause. It comes ill from my hon. Friends, as well as from Conservative Members, to discuss the possibility of not providing the money when all through the night hon. Members on both sides were trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in order to draw attention to the tremendous problems faced by British industry today. If we do not—

The Chairman: Order. I am very sorry to keep interrupting, but it is a fact that the hon. Member is now seeking to discuss subject matters. He may not do that. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if, when the hon. Gentleman sits down, I put the Question, so that we can come to a conclusion about it, whether the clause is passed or not.

11.30 a.m.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Will you be kind enough, Mr. Weatherill, to clarify for my benefit, if not for the benefit of other hon. Members, the ruling that you have given based on the extracts that you have read from


"Erskine May"? It seems that there is some lack of clarity around the edges of the quotations and around, if I may say so, with respect, the edges of your ruling.
You say, Mr. Weatherill, that we are entitled to discuss only whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. An hon. Member may argue that in his view the clause should stand part of the Bill or that it should not. It is manifestly inconceivable that one should advance either of those arguments without adducing the reason for the argument, without adducing the considerations that lead one to decide either that one should or should not support the proposition.
It is impossible to argue, Mr. Weatherill, whether the clause should stand part of the Bill without saying why it should. Manifestly that argument is not ruled out by the proposition that detail may not be discussed. Indeed, the very word "detail" is one that is incapable of definition. At what stage when moving down the scale from the general to the specific do we reach detail? If one argues that the sum is too great, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum is too small, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum covers items which it should not cover, is that a detail? If one argues that the sum does not include items which one thinks should be included, is that a detail? What does this mean?
Surely it is this sort of thing that brings the procedures of the House into contempt among the public. I know of no other assembly in the world, from the highest to the lowest, from the United Nations to the smallest parish council, in which one may discuss whether money should be spent but not mention on what it should be spent.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has illustrated amply the point that I have been seeking to make in my interventions. In the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", the Committee may either confirm or reject. It can do nothing else. No speeches will be in order that are not addressed to that Question.
As for the clauses dealing with the issue of moneys from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure may not be discussed. That is a clear rule. I am bound by the rules of the House and

I have no authority or power to change that. If a change is desired, there are other methods of doing it. However, those methods are not for this debate.

Mr. English: That is absolutely correct, Mr. Weatherill. However, I wish to address myself on this point of order to the remarks you made shortly before my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) raised his point of order.
You were suggesting, Mr. Weatherill, putting the motion to the vote of your own volition. I respectfully submit, Mr. Weatherill, that that would be an unwise thing to do. If the Government Chief Whip chose to move the Closure and you chose to accept it, Mr. Weatherill, it might conceivably be the wish of my hon. Friends to divide the House to ascertain whether the Government have over 100 of their supporters in this place or whether some of them are attending to duties outside the House, possibly earning the money that the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister will not allow them to earn in the House.
It is the belief of some of us, Mr. Weatherill, that not all Government Members who voted in the earlier Division are in the Palace of Westminster. We would like an opportunity to test that. With respect, Mr. Weatherill, it would be most unwise of you to put the Question to a vote without ascertaining whether the Government are capable of winning the closure on this debate.

The Chairman: That is not a matter for me. I suggested that as this was a narrow debate, the easiest way to decide whether clause 1 should stand part would be to put the Question. That is all that I suggested.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. It is in order for hon. Members to adduce reasons as to why the clause should not stand part. However, they must remain in order, and I shall remain rigid on that point.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You have drawn the attention of the House to the relevant passage in "Erskine May". At the beginning of the debate I raised a question about the


specific authority required for the Committee stage to be taken. "Erskine May" points out that the Committee stage cannot be taken on the same day as Second Reading, without a resolution of the House. The resolution does not state that the remaining stages shall be taken. It says that those stages may be taken.
I should be grateful for your guidance, Mr. Weatherill, because it would seem that the guidance given in "Erskine May" is that the House should pass a resolution giving a clear indication that it wishes the Committee stage to be taken on the same day. That is not true of the business motion. It is simply a rough guide. Will you rule, Mr. Weatherill, that the business motion does not conform with the guidance laid down on page 747 of "Erskine May"?

The Chairman: I cannot do that. The hon. Member had an opportunity to raise this issue when the business motion was put. He did not take that opportunity. The House passed the business motion, which clearly states:
more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is learned in these matters, did not wish to oppose the business motion. At that point, he would not have wished to point out to the Government Chief Whip the error of his ways.

The Chairman: That does not involve a matter of order. We should be discussing clause 1 stand part. Let us get back to that.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The fact that the business motion was passed and could have been debated does not affect the present position. If the business motion was defective in relation to the guidance given in "Erskine May", it remains so. I do not know whether the resolution was defective, but if it was, it would be irrelevant to the debate. If the proper authority, as laid down on page 747 of "Erskine May", did not apply, it does not apply now. I seek your guidance on that point.

The Chairman: Any resolution or motion that is passed by the House has been passed. We operate under that resolution.

Mr. Terry Davis: I appreciate the way, Mr. Weatherill, in which you are pursuing your role as Chairman. I have read the record of what happened three years ago and I understand the difficulty. I have also taken the precaution of reading "Erskine May". If my hon. Friend's experience difficulty about whether or not they are in order, they should read pages 743 to 749 of "Erskine May".

Mr. Christopher Price: Read it to us.

Mr. Davis: I shall not pursue that suggestion. My hon. Friends can go to the Library and read it. In addition, they should read the edition of Hansard dated 28 July 1977. You have referred, Mr. Weatherill, to the possibility of putting this matter to the vote as soon as I finish speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not."] I am glad to learn that I misunderstood. On that occasion the debate on clause 1 stand part took two and a half hours, from 11 am to 1.30 pm. That was after an hour of points of order by the then Opposition. Today we went straight into the debate on clause stand part.
On the last occasion, the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) drew attention to the amount of money involved in clause 1. He said that it was a large sum amounting to £22,000 million. On this occasion—

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss what happened in that year. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in those days I say where he is, so I know.

Mr. Davis: I was not seeking to discuss a debate in which, unfortunately, I did not participate, but I was drawing attention to what the hon. Member for Chingford said, because it is relevant to my argument. Clause 1 of the Bill states:
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund, and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 the sum of £41,601,455,200.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. My hon. Friend is only a year out. He would be in order if he


discussed 1978 instead of 1977 because the Bill repeals three Acts. The most important of them involves £26 billion of the £41 billion and is the Appropriation Act 1978.

Mr. Davis: I must leave that to my hon. Friends in the hope that they will catch the Chair's eye.
The sum of money involved in the Bill is about £41 billion, or rounded to the nearest billion pounds, £42 billion. In 1977 the hon. Member for Chingford drew attention to the rate at which the sum was increasing. At that time the sum involved was £22 billion.
This is not the first but the second Consolidated Fund Bill that we have discussed in this Parliament. The previous Bill, which was passed on 27 July 1979, involved £31 billion. That is a remarkable rate of increase. The sum has risen from £31 billion to about £42 billion. That is an increase of one-third in 12 months under a Government who are committed to controlling public expenditure. The rate of increase is remarkable. In 1977 the hon. Member for Chingford drew attention to the debate in Committee in 1961 in which Mr. Gaitskell took part and which involved a much smaller sum.
The point that I am trying to make is that the sum involved is increasing at a remarkable rate. I shall vote for the clause because of its effect on many people. Nevertheless, I hope that the Treasury Minister will explain why the amount of money involved has increased by one-third in 12 months. I hope that the Minister will reply. I hope that he does not leave me to do all his job for him. I hope that he will explain the inflationary or deflationary effect of the Bill on the economy. That has been discussed in great detail in previous debates.
I do not presume that I have the expertise—

Mr. Skinner: We do not wish to bandy about figures, but the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill last year provided for £31 billion, but this Bill provides for £42 billion. That is the point being made by my hon. Friend

the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis). We have heard about the balance—should we vote for or against the Bill? Some hon. Members may wish to abstain. They could be tormented to the point of abstention.

Mr. Davis: In the Lancashire marginals.

Mr. Skinner: Are we sure about the figures? With an astronomical rate of inflation—which the Conservative Government were elected to control at a stroke, or whatever—can we be sure that £41 billion equates with the present position? Unemployment is rising astronomically, which means that about £7 billion is being expended on the unemployed—at least, that is what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said. It might be a good idea if he came to the House and explained why he is out of line with Government policy. He said that it is costing £7 billion to finance the dole queue, out of a public sector borrowing requirement of £9 billion. He said that that is too high a price to pay for squeezing inflation out of the economy. Can we be sure that £41 billion is the correct figure? We need an explanation of that. Has it risen on the basis of increased unemployment and the massive number of liquidations and bankruptcies? We must try to extract from the Government whether based upon the escalating figures, they are satisfied that the figure is correct.
We are not discussing whether the £41 billion contains this, that or the other. I am asking whether we can be sure that the figure is correct. Is it up to date The Treasury is noted for being way out in its figures. I remember that a few years ago the previous Labour Government found that the Treasury was £5 billion out in the space of 12 months. The Treasury tends to run the show anyway, and it is beginning to get hold of the Government in various ways. At that time we should have debated the Consolidated Fund Bill to find out how far the figure was incorrect On the basis of that knowledge, we are now raising an important point. My hon. Friends the Members for Stechford and Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) have dealt with the matter from a different angle.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is out of order. I remind the Committee that the House decided by a resolution on 6 June that this sum should be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It is not in order for the Committee to attempt to go behind that resolution now.

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover put his finger on one reason for the dramatic increase in the sum that we are being asked to approve, namely, inflation which is now running at 20 per cent. There is bound to be a big increase in the amount of money provided in the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill. However, it is not only the effects of inflation that should be taken into account. My hon. Friend referred to inaccuracies in Treasury figures. He may remember that before the last general election we debated a Consolidated Fund Bill because there must be an Appropriation Act before Parliament is dissolved. On that occasion, the amount of money provided in the Bill—which became the first Appropriation Act of 1979—was £23 billion. By July, the figure had increased to £31 billion. Now it has nearly doubled to £42 billion. That is not only because of the effects of inflation—something else is happening. My hon. Friend is right to ask for an explanation. We may not receive that explanation today because it would involve the Minister in a great deal of detail. But I hope that at least he will talk in general terms about the totality of the gross figure of £42 billion.
I hope that the Minister will say what effect that sum will have on the economy. Will it be inflationary or deflationary? Nineteen years ago there was a long debate about the effect of a much smaller sum—

Mr. K. J. Woolmer: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Davis) leaves the topic raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which is important when considering the figure under discussion, may I say that it is increasingly difficult to know whether this figure is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made the point—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that the figure is not correct. I understand that just before I took the Chair the previous occupant had indicated that the House, by resolution, had approved this sum. Therefore, I do not propose to listen to argument about the correctness or otherwise of the sum.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. When you said just now that immediately before taking the Chair you heard the previous occupant say that the sum was in order because it had been approved by a resolution of the House, you will also recall that he gave a date in June. It is clear—such is this Government's lack of control of spending, and so on, despite all the cosmetic statements bandied about by the Prime Minister and her minions—that expenditure is completely out of control and money is being spent about which they are not at all sure. From June to the first week in August is a pretty long time, bearing in mind that the sum has already gone up by 30-odd per cent.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The remarks of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are outside the scope of this debate. Let me make the position quite clear to the Committee. The relevant resolution was passed by the House on 31 July.

Mr. Walter Harrison: Your predecessor said June.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have just been advised that reference is made in the orders to 31 July.

Mr. Harrison: June.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not intend to enter into an argument about that. I am telling the Committee that the resolution was passed by the House on 31 July.

Mr. Woolmer: Before my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover intervened with his point of order, I was about to make the point that I was not questioning the correctness of the sum which, as you rightly say, Mr. Crawshaw, has already been the subject of a resolution of the House. I have come here today to listen


to the arguments being put forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stetchford was making the point—and I wanted him to clarify it before he sat down—that, although we had agreed to a figure and were not arguing about it, in money terms the figure which we had agreed had become out of date to the tune of £2 million a day at the current rate of inflation since we last considered it.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The amount was passed by the House, and that is the amount which the Committee is considering. We are not considering whether inflation had any bearing on it. We are considering the amount referred to in the original resolution.

Mr. Terry Davis: Yes, we are discussing the amount referred to in the original resolution and, of course, we cannot amend that sum.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall not argue about the figure. However, bearing in mind the figure that we are discussing and bearing in mind what has been said about inflation and what this Government said they would do if they were elected—

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is now starting another argument altogether. We are debating the figure which was passed by a resolution of the House on 31 July. The Committee must keep to that figure.

Mr. Davis: I am not seeking to change the figure. We cannot change it, because it is already in the resolution, as you remind us, Mr. Crawshaw. However, we are entitled to debate whether this clause should stand part of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.

Mr. Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the principle of debating the clause is important, because it is clear that the House is discussing large, even astronomical, sums, which our procedures for examination and scrutiny are not keeping up with? Since the House is evolving procedures all the time, the fact that my hon. Friend is to vote in favour of clause 1 standing part of the Bill is not relevant and it is important that Back-Bench Members examine the clause and the arguments on the question

whether it should stand part of the Bill, so that by raising the issues involved and by stopping the clause going through on the nod we shall produce pressure for better scrutiny to allow us to discuss the detail at some time in the future.

Mr. Davis: I accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying. There is a need to bring up to date the House's procedures on the scrutiny of Government expenditure. However, the amount that we are discussing has been established and, as the Chairman told us when he was in the Chair, the detail cannot be discussed now.

Mr. Haynes: I repeat that I am not arguing about the figures; I am concerned about the principle of the matter. Many people outside the House will want to know where this sort of money—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have a point of principle to raise, but all that we can discuss is whether we are to pass the amount contained in the clause. If the House wishes to change its procedures, that is a matter for the House, but as things stand the issue is whether we pass the figure in the clause. Other hon. Members may share the view of the hon. Member for Ashfield, but it is up to the House to change its procedures. I cannot change them today.

Mr. Davis: We have to discuss the merits of the sum contained in clause 1. I must advise my hon. Friends that they cannot raise matters of detail, desirable though that may be. We had an opportunity to discuss the detail during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Skinner: I do not want to discuss the details. Perhaps we have delved into matters that we should not have delved into, but that is neither here nor there. I am sure that the Clerk and the Chair will agree with the point that I am about to make.
We should have the ability to influence the Government sometimes. The Government have a majority of about 70 over the Labour Party and I am not saying that we can have a great influence, but there are occasions, though not many, when a few speeches in the House can register in the thick skulls of the Government. That does happen sometimes.
Within the narrow remit of the clause, we are saying that this is not the right time to be debating the matter. We ought to try to influence the Government, if not on this occasion at least on a future occasion, to bear in mind that the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill, containing such a mammoth amount of expenditure, ought to be examined in a different manner.
It could be that the upsurge of feeling among my hon. Friends who are trying to—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have heard the arguments that have been put forward. Possibly they are genuine arguments about the House's ability to question the Government.

Mr. Skinner: They are.

The Second Deputy Chairman: They are genuine arguments, but I point out that the custom in the past—I accept that customs can be changed—has been that because the Committee stage went through on the nod—because people's salaries are involved—and clauses were not voted against, the House was given the opportunity to have numerous debates throughout the night on the Second Reading. That was the quid pro quo for the Committee stage being taken formally.
If the House thinks that that is wrong, it has the power to change the arrangements. But the House had had an all-night sitting, debating subjects of hon. Members' choice. If the House wants to change that pattern and to debate the items in the Consolidated Fund, it is within the power of the House to take such a decision. It is not within its power to do so now. The rules are clear. It is for the House to change those rules. If we had got rid of all the debates during the night, we could have been discussing these matters. That is the background. I hope that we can come to a decision on clause 1.

12 noon

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Cranshaw. I wonder whether I can make a submission which I made to your predecessor in the Chair and to which he gave a reply directed to a point different from the one I submitted. His reply was immaculate but on a different

point. Surely, the ruling that is laid down in "Erskine May" puts us all in a difficulty. The ruling is not easy to understand. It is clear from "Erskine May" that one must not discuss detail and that one can direct one's mind only to the question of considering whether one considers that clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
In terms of any common sense in debate, one must surely give, if arguing in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill, the reasons for so arguing. If one is arguing against the proposal, like some of my hon. Friends, one must also give reasons. No hon. Member is fulfilling his duty if he gets up and says that he is in favour of the clause standing part of the Bill without giving any reason and merely declares "I am not going to tell you why. I am just in favour of it." Alternatively an hon Member might say "I am against the clause standing part of the Bill. I will not tell you why. I am just against it." That would be nonsensical. It would reduce this Mother of Parliaments to an absolute nonsense.
It is clear that an hon. Member must be able to say why he is taking the view he adopts. It is possible that in the course of doing so, he must not get down to the minutiae. I put it to you, with the deepest respect, Mr. Crawshaw, that an hon. Member cannot be prevented from giving his reasons.

The Second Deputy Chairman: My predecessor as Chairman answered that question in terms of what the Chair expects in these debates. So far as I am concerned, that stands at the present time. The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members are in difficulty. The Chair is sometimes in difficulty in trying to keep hon. Members in order within the terms of this debating rule. Sometimes, hon. Members go out of order because they do not understand the rulings. At other times, there might be other reasons. I shall not suggest what those other reasons might be. As matters stand, this is the ruling by which the Chair is bound. I can only repeat what my predecessor in the Chair said. We can go on discussing this, but we shall get outside the rules of debate again for the reasons I have given. I therefore think that the debate should proceed.

Mr. Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I should like to


press you a little further. I am genuinely trying to get clarification. Does your ruling mean that an hon. Member is, or is not, entitled, to give the reasons why he is supporting or opposing the motion that clause 1 stand part of the Bill.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Hon. Members in Committee may argue to affirm or reject. I have made clear how this arises. It arises because of the history of the Consolidated Fund. I cannot say more than that. It is for the House to change its procedure. In the past, it has been the procedure that the House either affirms or rejects. In the House wants to change that situation it must do it by some ruling in the future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. Some of us have spent most of the night in the Chamber awaiting debates on Second Reading, and now that we are in Committee you inform us that many of the points that we would have raised should have been raised overnight. These Benches are cluttered with hon. Members who have been waiting in the Lobby to speak in debates that were not called. Might it not be for you, as Deputy Speaker, along with Mr. Speaker, to recommend to the Whips on both sides that in future the Consolidated Fund Bill overnight debates should last until the early hours of the following afternoon? By doing that—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I think that the hon. Member has a point, but it is not part of the debate now. What he is saying is merely a continuation of what I outlined to the House. I am sure that the House may wish to look into this problem and the question of how to deal with it, but at present the Chair can accept argument only on whether we pass or do not pass these provisions.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order. The appropriate passage in "Erskine May" says:
On those clauses"—
that is, the clauses that we are discussing now—
the object of which is to ensure the application of grants made by Parliament to the objects defined by the Supply resolutions, debate and amendment must be restricted to the principle of appropriaion.

Appropriation presumably is the way in which the money specified in clause 1 is allocated to the various Government services and Departments.
If that is so, is it not possible for us to discuss the areas in which the allocation is made rather than the specific services provided under that allocation? If that is so, the debate must be fairly wide.

Mr. Lawson: That is not so.

Mr. Lyon: If, as I hear the Financial Secretary chuntering from a sedentary position, it is not so, I should be grateful for some indication from the Chair of the extent to which appropriation has relevance in this connection, and of the ambit within which a discussion of the kind embraced by clause 1 may take place.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I do not propose to enter into a discussion on "appropriation". All I am saying as Chairman is that the custom of the House in the past, because of the procedure that we have adopted for dealing with this Fund, is that the Chair will not allow discussion of individual items or how they are arrived at. I have already said that if the House wishes to change the custom it is within the power of the House to do so. We cannot do it today.

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to the point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. I take the point that the House has certain customs, but I had always distinguished in my mind, in the proceedings on the Floor of the House, between our customs, which are usually followed with the assent of the whole House, and the rules of order, which bind the Chair and the whole House. I put it to you, Mr. Crawshaw, that it is the rules of order, of procedure in Committee, which should bind the discussion now taking place, and not, as it were, some custom. We do not have a book of customs, except "Erskine May". "Erskine May" is some guide, but surely not every dot and comma of "Erskine May" has to be followed to the letter. Customs are flexible things, which we change from time to time over the years, whereas rules of order are rules of order.

The Second Deputy Chairman: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman and to the other hon. Gentlemen. We are discussing clause 1. The Chair has made its point


quite clear as to what is expected in this debate. Whether or not the Committee agrees, that is what the ruling is. All that we are doing now is discussing points of order, which is taking away the time of the Committee. I feel that we ought to move on now to put the Question on clause 1 to the vote.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. In any debate in the House of Commons the attempt is made to elucidate different positions as to why we agree or disagree about something. But also what happens in debates is that a catalyst is at work. It sometimes helps to change things, not necessarily on that day but on some other occasion. Because we do not have a written constitution, this place is littered with examples of debates on, perhaps, obscure issues, but out of which have arisen changes which have taken place later.
I put it to you, Mr. Crawshaw, that in the early 1970s we entered the Common Market, against the wishes of many of us, and that—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That cannot possibly be relevant to this matter.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Crawshaw. You have referred to "Erskine May". I should like to draw your attention to page 746 and the chapter dealing with the debate on the Consolidated Fund and "Procedure in Committee". The second sentence says:
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed".
I should like your guidance on the word "subjects".
I take it, Mr. Crawshaw, that this means that detailed application of money, say, in the Home Office—the subject of the overnight debate that I was going to raise—for example, the spying at Men-worth Hill near Harrogate, that sort of detail, could not be raised. But surely the interpretation of this word in this section of "Erskine May" does not preclude comment, in discussing the expenditure in the clauses of the Bill, on the amount of money which goes to the Home Office as a whole, a lump sum, together with other subjects which add up to the total global sum.
I should like your guidance as to whether we are limited to discussing purely the global sum, whether we can mention the break-up into the separate sections of a global sum for the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence, or whatever, or whether we can go down into the detail, or, if that is excluded from the debate, the detailed administrative costs of the Home Office or whatever.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is excluded.

Mr. Terry Davis: I feel that I owe you an apology, Mr. Crawshaw. It was before you took the Chair, and when Mr. Weatherill was in the Chair—I see that he is now returning to the Chair—that I referred my hon. Friends to "Erskine May" in an attempt to be helpful.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have had a ruling from your predecessor in the Chair, which was in accordance with "Erskine May", that in the debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill, we are entitled to discuss only appropriation. I was led to argue that in deciding to discuss appropriation, we were entitled to discuss the way in which the money was allocated. That received dissent from a sedentary position from the Financial Secretary, and the Chair suggested that we were entitled to talk only about the global figure. But in seeking a definition of what "appropriation" is within the meaning of our rules I am looking at page 704—

The Chairman: I can easily help the hon. Gentleman. What he is really now raising is a point of order about clause 2, not clause 1. He will find that clause 2 deals with
Appropriation of sums voted for supply services".
Clause 1 does not. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman would be in order to deal with appropriation on clause 2, but not on clause 1.

Mr. Cryer: Before you came back into the Chair, Mr. Weatherill, I raised a point of order, when the Chair's interpretation seemed to be that it was not possible to debate the detailed application but that the global sum of each individual Department was debatable. Does that apply to clause 1 or clause 2?

The Chairman: On the contrary, the details are not debatable. The only matter that is debatable—I am sorry to repeat this, probably for the eighth or ninth time—is that clause 1 stand part of the Bill. The debate is as narrow as that, and I must ask the Committee to stick to it.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does that mean, Mr. Weatherill, that, clause 1 having stood part of the Bill, we could discuss the appropriation of sums under clause 2? I ask only in order that we may know what to do on clause 1.

The Chairman: We are dealing with the Question, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill. When that question has been disposed of I shall propose the Question, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Terry Davis: Before I was interrupted by those points of order, Mr. Weatherill, I was in the middle of an apology to you for having referred my hon. Friends to "Erskine May" I now realise that that was a sad mistake. I was not seeking to encourage them to raise points of order; I hoped to avoid points of order. I very much regret that I had the opposite effect.
While you were out of the Chair Mr. Weatherill, a very serious point was made by Mr. Crawshaw. If I heard him correctly, he said that it was the precedent for the Committee stage to pass on the nod. In fact, there are precedents against that. It is certainly customary for the Committee stage to be a perfunctory affair, but there are also precedents for a debate when the Opposition have strong feelings—perhaps not connected with the Bill—and use this opportunity to impress their feelings upon the Government. It is an opportunity dear to the hearts of parliamentarians, and it has been used in the past.
In the way in which we conduct our business, it is important to protect this and similar occasions. They may appear like gimmicks to people outside the House, but they are ways in which we can impress our feelings upon the Government. That is what is happening today.
My. hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said that he hoped that debates in the House would influence the thinking of the people who currently

occupy the Treasury. I thought that that was a very kind remark. Indeed, if it would not upset him too much, I would say that it was a positively moderate remark about the present—

Mr. Skinner: Let us get this matter in the proper perspective before the Official Reporters start putting in things that I have not said. I was talking about the thick skulls of people opposite, for a start. That puts the matter in its proper context.
What I was saying generally was that there was a catalyst at work, in that in this place, on occasions—very rare—a debate about something or other can have a chain reaction resulting in changes taking place later. I was going on to explain that because we do not have a written constitution—it is like Johnny getting older every day; things change—

Mr. Walter Harrison: My hon. Friend should address the Chair.

Mr. Skinner: I am addressing the Chair. I always address the Chair. My right hon. Friend is suggesting that I am not addressing the Chair. You know full well, Mr. Weatherill, that I am addressing the Chair—I have been doing so all morning—

The Chairman: Order. I am very grateful, but I would far rather the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to clause 1—when I call him, and not in an intervention.

Mr. Skinner: I was addressing my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) before he went any further along that road. He cannot really go on record and say that I am expecting the Conservatives suddenly to jump up and be full of realisation, and take account of what we are saying. That is not the point.
My point is that arising out of what has happened this morning it may well be that even the Clerks will look at "Erskine May" rather differently. We might get an understanding of what "narrow" means. I want to know whether "narrow", in terms of a narrow debate, means a little less than wide.
I am saying that the situation can be changed. I was going to say that there might be a metamorphosis. There, I have now said it. I am saying that words should


not be put into my mouth. I do not think for a moment that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cares two hoots about what I and my hon. Friends are saying, but there are some people who believe that £41,601,455,200—or nearly £42,000 million—

The Chairman: Order. I really cannot allow the hon. Member to make interventions that are full speeches. He jeopardises the opportunity that he may have to make a contribution later on.

Mr. Terry Davis: I am sorry if I provoked my hon. Friend. I had no wish to sabotage his chances in other spheres in a few moments' time. I should be sorry if my description of him as kind, moderate or even soft on the Government got him into trouble elsewhere.
I am concerned with the amount of money specified in clause 1. I urge my hon. Friends to return to the point, which is clause 1. The question that faces us is whether we should vote that clause 1 stand part of the Bill or not. We are dealing with a large sum of money. It is so large that my hon. Friend could not even read it.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: I am sorry to interrupt the even flow of my hon. Friend's speech. I hope that he will understand that I was listening hard to his earlier point. He thought that we should support the retention of clause 1. That is set against the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), who said that we should oppose clause 1 on principle.
I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on the difficulty that will be created if the Committee rejects clause 1. What are the implications for the rest of the Bill? Does the Bill fall, or do the other clauses stand on their own? We are in grave difficulty on that issue. Will my hon. Friend comment further?

Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs) has put his finger on an extremely important point. I was hoping that I would not be pressed on it because, as I understand it, the constitutional consequences of not voting for clause 1 stand part are extremely serious. As far as I am able to discover from my researches, the situation will be totally unprecedented in the annals of the House.
It was suggested, when similar clauses in other Appropriation Bills were being debated, that such a situation would abort the whole procedure and that the situation would be so serious that, apart from people not being paid, and industry not having bills paid, the Prime Minister, in all probability, would feel obliged to call a general election.
I was anxious to persuade my hon. Friends to vote for clause 1. However, in all honesty I must tell them that the situation might precipitate a general election. I realise that in saying that I shall probably persuade them to completely the opposite point of view to my own. Inciting them to vote against the Bill in the hope that they will precipitate a general election at the same time means that we shall lose the support of some of the tormented souls on the Conservative Benches who might have been persuaded to vote against the measure for reasons, perhaps, related to the control of public expenditure or other issues.
If a general election were precipitated it would have some beneficial effects.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: If my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) will allow me to finish my point I shall give way shortly. I hope to give way to him. I have given way to everybody else this morning. I am very open. I was about to explain that the consequences of having a general election at present would be most serious. However, the effects would not be bad, because many of us believe that the result of such an election would be that a Labour Government would be returned. We might then have a totally different policy not only for the economy but in other areas as well.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend raises a most interesting point concerning a general election and people voting against the clause. Is he aware that a number of Conservative hon. Members in marginal seats in Lancashire make it a practice of voting against the Government in the Lobbies on issues that are sometimes important but never central to Government policy, as in this case, and then return to their constituencies and inform the local press of what guts they have in standing up to the


Government? The truth is that they sit like mice on the Government Benches and never say a word. Will my hon. Friend comment on the possibility of a general election against the background of that kind of activity? Does he agree that this is a particularly apt opportunity for these hon. Members to be flushed out'? This is a sensitive and important issue. It gives us an opportunity to establish the position of those hon. Members on a matter of importance to the Government.

Mr. Davis: I shall not go into that aspect, Mr. Weatherill, because I think that that would range outside the rules of order. If I were to digress in that direction, I should be much more concerned with the way in which Conservative Members with marginal seats in the West Midlands vote.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Davis: I know that I promised to give way to my hon. Friend. I ask him simply to contain his impatience for a moment longer.
We have to consider what would happen between the defeat of the clause and the general election that we envisage would follow. There would be a gap of several weeks during which people would be unable to obtain money. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to impose that fate on innocent people who tike no part in the political battles inside and outside the House. There is of course the Civil Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Mikardo: Surely my hon. Friend has not forgotten that a lot of people are not able to obtain money for several weeks at a time because of Government policy and are forced to put up with that. I refer to claimants whose benefits are delayed while snoopers go around investigating. Pensioners are kept waiting because of some mess-up at Newcastle. If a few more people suffered those discomfitures resulting from Government policy perhaps there would be such an outcry that the Government would start to put things right.

Mr. Davis: It is not only those people who would suffer. It is possible that the people who receive supplementary benefit would suffer, because they would be unable to obtain their money.
I promised my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that I would give way to him. I am sorry that I have not already done so.

Mr. Cryer: If the Government were unable to pay out money, that would be most important. However, the Government have a numerical advantage and they could introduce a motion of confidence. No doubt Conservative Members will all go into the Lobby to support them.
Will my hon. Friend, when he has finished his remarks about the possibility of a general election, spell out the balance of advantage of passing or attempting to reject the clause in view of the circumstances that he outlined? I thought that he did not go into those circumstances fully enough. He referred to people who would be without money, but pensioners are subject to the imposition of an artificial 54-week year, and are deprived of money for two weeks. They are in limbo for an additional two weeks.
Would it be fair to put other people in that position, or should we vote for the clause? Will my hon. Friend deal with that when he has finished his remarks on the general election?

Mr. Davis: I had finished those remarks, perhaps because I was anticipating the outcome and assuming that it would be a Government whose policies I would support. A general election takes at least four weeks, so people would not be able to get money for a month or more.

Mr. Cryer: I was suggesting only that the Government had put people in the artificial position of being deprived of money by creating a 54-week year. I was not suggesting that they would be deprived only of two weeks' money. If we opposed clause 1, for what period does my hon. Friend consider that people would be deprived of money?

Mr. Davis: On the surface, for a period of at least three to four weeks. It could be more. However, there is a Civil Contingencies Fund.
Not only the people who depend on supplementary benefits would be affected. Those administering the DHSS would be.


It would also precipitate a wave of bankruptcies in industry. It would be no good the Government's paying later if firms had in the meantime gone bankrupt. We should consider the consequences of that for trade union members.
The Civil Contingencies Fund was raised in 1977 by, I believe, the present Under-Secretary of State for Trade. The hon. Gentleman spoke at great length, and he was not interrupted as often as I have been today. The problem is that we do not know how much money is in that fund. I assume that it is not a bottomless purse. That knowledge may assist us in voting, and I hope that the Minister can tell us how much the fund contains. It is the hon. Gentleman's task to explain the consequences of the clause being defeated. No Government Back-Bench Member appears willing to support the Bill.

Mr. Cryer: This is one of the grey areas of Parliament. We recognise that people depend on the money and small firms might be in difficulties if payments were withheld, but we wish to scrutinise the figures. The matter demonstrates how much small firms depend on Government support. Does my hon. Friend consider that it would be useful to divide the House in order to break with these patently daft traditions. It is a convention that we cannot talk about detailed expenditure in the Consolidated Fund Bill Committee, because that has been so since 1888. However, Parliament has to register a marker in the evolutionary process of change, which is necessary if we are to have proper accountability, bearing in mind the changes that have taken place since the nineteenth century, when the Consolidated Fund Bill was a nominal matter. Very much larger sums are paid out today.

Mr. Davis: I understand the purpose of my hon. Friend's intervention. He is making a strong case for saying "Let us have a general election to bring the matter to a head and then we shall sort out how Parliament discusses public expenditure." The end result would be a much better system for the scrutiny of public expenditure in the detail that my hon. Friend and I would like, but the weakness in his argument is that those who would

pay the price for that reform, desirable though it is, would be the people who had not received their money in the meantime.

Mr. Skinner: I am listening very closely to my hon. Friend's argument. He has gone through it with a fine-toothed comb. It is whether we should defeat the Government and prevent this £41,000 million, this huge sum of taxpayers' money—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is £42,000 million.

Mr. Skinner: It is nearly £42,000 million. My hon. Friend's argument, as I have grasped it, is that people will go without money. I do not think that would be the case. We know that there is a Civil Contingencies Fund. We are not too sure how much is in it. There might be more or less in it than some of us think. But that is not the argument for me. I know that the Government would attempt to reverse the position before the end of the long recess. They would attempt to put matters right. My hon. Friend will recall that in 1976 some of us refused to support the Labour Government when they were cutting public expenditure—

The Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that that is not in order on clause 1 stand part.

Mr. Skinner: My point is that my hon. Friend wants to vote for clause 1 stand part because he is naturally worried about people not getting the money that they need—for example, the unemployed, whose numbers are growing massively, and nearly 10 million old-age pensioners who need every penny that they can get, including those two weeks that they will miss as a result of the Government inventing this new calendar.

The Chairman: Order. Would the hon. Gentleman care to seek to make a speech on that matter—

Mr. Skinner: Yes.

The Chairman: —when the time comes? At the moment we are listening to his hon. Friend.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend ought to understand that the situation will not be as dramatic as he thinks. The Government will not allow this period. They


might if they think that they can inflict harm on old-age pensioners, but they have a majority. They would come back. Therefore, it is not as dramatic as all that. But look at the prize. The prize would be that—

The Chairman: Order. We really cannot have interventions of this length.

Mr. Skinner: It always happens to me.

Mr. Davis: I thought that my hon. Friend at the end of his intervention was beginning to talk himself round to my point of view. In his opening remarks he seemed to be suggesting that the Government would put everything right. That is to display for the second time today an amazing degree of faith in the Government. There is no difference between us in our feelings for the people who would suffer as a result of defeating the clause. There may be some difference between us, certainly between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and possibly my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, on whether it is worth paying that price. The dilemma which faces people who want change is whether to press for that change to a point where they cause damage in the short term because in the long term the price is worth it. There is a great deal of truth in the old saying that in the long term everybody is dead. People live in the short term. We must be careful about defeating the clause. We must be given a firm assurance by the Minister—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Could you seek the necessary information and tell us what has happened to the Government? Could it be that they are at this moment having a special meeting somewhere—a meeting of the 1922 Committee, or whatever it may be? Conservative Members have left the Chamber. This is important. My hon. Friend is making some valid points and all the Tory Members have gone. I know that they are not all lawyers, but a hell of a lot are. Where are they?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I noticed in the Members' Lobby a most unusual sight, because the Whips were together and were holding a sort of meeting to d;scuss tactics.

The Chairman: Order. What goes on in the Lobby or anywhere else in this building other than in this Chamber is not a matter for me.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: Just a moment; we must get on. I ask for your assistance, Mr. Weatherill. I am trying to reach the main point of my speech.

The Chairman: Order. Let us return to reality. The hon. Gentleman is about to reach the main point of his speech. That must be concerned only with whether the clause should stand part of the Bill and should contain no detail whatever.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: No, I shall not give way. I think that I shall incur your displeasure, Mr. Weatherill, if I keep giving way to my hon. Friends. I accept what you have said. We must talk about clause 1, which seeks to make it possible—because it uses the word "may" rather than "shall"—for the Government to make a certain sum of money available. I have discussed the effect of not voting for the clause.

Mr. Dubs: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: I shall give way in a moment. I am concerned about the effect of not voting for the clause. That is why I have spoken, because I am anxious to persuade my hon. Friends—contrary to the view enunciated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West—that it would be unwise to vote against clause 1. [Interruption.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) says that he needs a lot of persuasion. I am trying in my humble way to do the job that should be done by Conservative Back Benchers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has drawn attention to the fact that they are not in the Chamber. Indeed, if it goes on much longer like this I shall have to suggest to my hon. Friends that we cross the Chamber and occupy the Conservative Back Benches, because we seem to be doing the Government's job for them, general election or no general election. I would not expect


my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover to come with me because I think that he is happier on this side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South was anxious to intervene. As I have not given way often to him, I shall make an exception in his case.

Mr. Dubs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. I asked earlier about the implications in the event of clause 1 being defeated and how that would affect the Bill. My hon. Friend answered in a very broad sense about a delay in payments to pensioners and so on, consequent upon a general election. Perhaps he will answer my question in a more limited sense. Let us suppose that the Committee were to defeat clause 1, with the rest of the Bill being allowed to stand as it is. What will be the implications then? Would the schedules fall? Does my hon. Friend think that the Government would have to withdraw the entire Bill and present another one, or does he think that the Bill as it stands, without clause 1, could continue?

Mr. Davis: That is the problem. As I understand it, the Bill cannot continue without clause 1. If I am mistaken, I hope that the Financial Secretary will intervene and correct me. It is my understanding that without clause 1 the Bill is neutered. That is why I urge my hon. Friends not to take the dramatic, drastic and extreme step of voting against clause 1.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Davis: The schedules would not fall. Schedules A and B relate to clause 2, and schedule C relates to clause 3. Therefore, they are not affected by clause 1. However, without clause 1 the whole purpose of the Bill is frustrated. In view of the damage that that would inflict, and the problems that that would pose for other people who are not concerned in the arguments of the main political parties in this country, that would be a mistake.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davis: This is a balance which my hon. Friends must strike for them-

selves. On the one hand, they can follow the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West, who is so concerned about aspects that I shall not go into because they would be out of order as they involve the detail and not the principle of the expenditure of £42,000 million. He was so concerned about those and other matters that he was prepared not only to speak against clause 1 but to pursue his opposition to the Government to the point of going into the Lobby and voting against the clause. That is what concerns me. That would be a mistake.

Mr. Cryer: You very kindly mentioned the note of reality, Mr. Weatherill, and the way in which the speech had to be balanced. When we talk about voting against the clause, the likelihood is that we shall be defeated and the clause will remain part of the Bill.
Will my hon. Friend look at the reality of this and combine his remarks about the undesirability of the position that would arise if the clause were to be defeated with the desirability of striking a balance on whether we should vote, together with the necessity to establish the unsatisfactory nature of the Bill and the clause purely as a nominal procedural gesture? We could perhaps register our opposition by not declaring Tellers, so that we combine the best of both worlds.
Will my hon. Friend give his views, in relation to what he has just said about the removal of the clause, on the possibility of retaining it but emphasising our concern that the scrutiny is grossly inadequate?

Mr. Davis: My concern throughout has been to persuade my hon. Friends not to press their opposition to the Government in all sorts of matters, not least of them the Housing Bill, to the point at which they vote against clause 1 of this Bill.

Mr. Winnick: Persuade us.

Mr. Davis: I accept full responsibility for my failure if I have not persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North. I have done my best to persuade him. Perhaps he was not here at the beginning of my speech.

Dr. David Clark: I came in to hear this brief speech, Mr. Weatherill, because I understood that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was about to put the Government's case. He has done that very effectively. Being a lawyer by training, he always puts his arguments in a very erudite way, as compared with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is tautologous on many occasions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stechford referred to the sum of £42,000 million. I understood him to be arguing that this represented a 33 per cent. increase and that therefore it was an increase in public expenditure which must be borne in mind in relation to an inflation rate of 20 per cent. I am using my hon. Friend's words when I say that we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Mr. Skinner: That was my point.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made the point originally but my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford was not able to develop it fully because there was, I think, a point of order.

Mr. Davis: I have tried to convince my hon. Friend, and I am sorry if I have not been able to do so.
Before I deal with the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), I should like to refer to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. He suggested that we should vote against the clause without really meaning it. But if one injures someone, it is no good then saying "I did not really mean it, I was trying to get at the Government." We should be saying, in effect, to people throughout the length and breadth of Britain that we did not really mean to deprive them of money to which they are entitled—money on which they depend.
We are trying to persuade or to press the Government to take some action or other. I do not think that people would understand. If I were one of those affected in that way, I would see my own interest as having been dramatically and seriously affected. I would be concerned only with the fact that I did not have any money for a week, a fortnight, three

weeks or a month—or perhaps until after a general election.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I invite my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) to address his mind to another aspect. He said earlier, quite rightly, that the House normally makes this a perfunctory occasion. Does he think that the appropriation of £42 billion, which is roughly the sum in clause 1, is such an occasion? Does he agree that if the House treats in a perfunctory manner the appropriation of such a sum it is not discharging adequately its duty to the taxpayer?
I understand my hon. Friend's arguments for not voting against clause 1. However, it would be by taking a drastic action such as that that this unsatisfactory perfunctory business of nodding through £42 billion of taxpayers' money could be brought to an end. Following that the House might give its mind to devising a sensible, responsible and proper method of appropriation for supply. Will he address his mind to that?

The Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) will not answer the first and last parts of the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). It is not in order to debate procedure during this debate. The Question is whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Davis: I accept your ruling, Mr. Weatherill. We have been over the ground earlier. I think that you gave a similar ruling at an earlier stage. I intended not to succumb to the temptation presented by my hon. Friend's intervention. I am rather puzzled because you told me, Mr. Weatherill, not to respond to the first or last parts of his intervention. I did not notice the middle part and so I cannot respond to that either.

Mr. Skinner: The middle part of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was about nodding things through. It is well known that Governments do not want to be accused of nodding things through. The Opposition are helping them today—

The Chairman: Order. That is exactly what I was saying the Committee cannot discuss.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The issue of nodding through is extremely important. A few years ago a Tory newspaper, the Daily Mail ran a story which said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), who was then Secretary of State for Industry, had nodded through moneys that were related to a transaction involving British Leyland. That created a storm. The matter was taken to court and the Daily Mail had to withdraw the allegation on the steps of the court. It did not even get in court. It was considered, whether in "Erskine May" or in any other May, to be a slight upon a Minister to nod something through. If it is right that a Minister can be slighted by a Tory newspaper in that way and can receive damages—as you will know, Mr. Weatherill, there were others involved—surely this Tory Government should pay attention to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley.
I shall come later to the point—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) should raise these important issues—I agree that they are important—in the debate on procedure that will take place on Thursday.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. We have now reached an interesting development. It is now being suggested, Mr. Weatherill, that I can raise all these considerable issues about whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. You have said, Mr. Weatherill, that I can raise all these matters when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) has finished, or when other hon. Members have made their contributions. There are many points—

The Chairman: Order. I did not say that, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. I said that he was discussing procedural matters, which are not in order in this debate, but which will be in order on Thursday.

Mr. Davis: I am beginning to think that unless we make some progress, we shall never reach that debate on Thursday. I have remembered the middle part of the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley). His point related to the

fact that in order to pursue the aim—about which I do not wish to digress—of changing the procedure for voting public funds, we should vote against clause 1. I wish to persuade my hon. Friends that that is misguided. The effect of voting against clause 1 would be so serious, that although the aim, namely to improve the scrutiny of public expenditure, might be laudable, the damage done by voting against the clause would be extreme. Opposition to it should not be pursued to that extent.

Mr. Winnick: We are debating an important sum, namely, £42,000 million of public expenditure. I am sure that the Chair will say that it is out of order to discuss the procedure of Supply, and so on. However, no one can deny that that amount of money is substantial. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government and their supporters constantly urge greater scrutiny of public expenditure and say that it is of the greatest importance, there are only five Conservative Members in the Chamber? Does my hon. Friend have any idea why Government supporters pay so little attention to a matter of such crucial importance?

Mr. Davis: We must asume that the Government's supporters are not anxious for this large amount of money to be scrutinised. They are afraid that we might stray from the paths of order and discuss how the money is to be spent. Although that temptation is seductive, I shall resist it. The sum of money could be spent in many ways. My hon. Friend and I should like to discuss that. However, Conservative Members are probably not anxious to discuss the sum of money in detail or in total.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was correct to say that the theme behind the Conservative Party's campaign has been to scrutinise public expenditure and to reduce it.
In the past 12 months there has been an increase of 30 per cent. The amount has increased from £31,000 million to £42,000 million in 12 months. That is a substantial sum of money. It is true that part of that increase is due to inflation. However, that accounts for only 20 per cent. or 21 per cent., depending on when the figures were struck. That still leaves an unexplained increase of 9 per cent.


or 10 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North was right to draw attention to that point. It is strange that such an increase should be made by a party that pledged, when in opposition, to reduce public expenditure. We do not share that aim.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not my hon. Friend worried that he has taken on the responsibility of putting the Government's case? The debate has shown that Conservative Members have refused to carry out their responsibility to sell the Government's policy to the House. We have all been elected, and I have always been led to believe that it was our role to stand LID and to debate the principal issues of the day. And yet once in a while the Government Benches are filled with hon. Members—

1 pm

The Chairman: Order. The debate has nothing to do with the policies of the Government. It has to do only with whether—[Interruption] Order. The debate has to do only with whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I was simply suggesting that there is a duty on Government spokesmen and Government Back-Benchers such as the hon. Members for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) and for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), to seize the opportunity to debate this central issue which has a vital effect on their constituents. A large amount of money for the British Steel Corporation is wrapped up indirectly in the figures. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe would have taken on the responsibility—

The Chairman: Order.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is a point of order. Government Members should take the opportunity of defending the Government, instead of leaving it to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) who, acting valiantly, has been arguing the Government's case for almost two hours.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: A point of order has been raised. I shall deal with one hon. Member at a time. I can only repeat what I have said from the beginning, that this is a narrow debate. I am bound by the rules of order. I have no authority to change the rules. If hon. Members wish them to be changed they have the opportunity in procedure debates. Now we may discuss only whether the clause stand part of the Bill. It is not in order to discuss individual sums or topics.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Another point of order?

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I found it difficult to believe my ears when I heard you say that the policies of the Government are not relevant to the question whether the clause should stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. I did not say that. I said that it is not in order to debate the policies of the Government. They might be relevant, but it is not in order to debate them.

Mr. Mikardo: That is precisely the point. If it is not in order to debate policies, that can only be because they are not relevant to the question. It is in order to debate anything which is relevant to the question. The clause relates to a sum of nearly £42 billion. That does not exist in a vacuum. That sum is allocated in order to pursue the Government's programme. It is the ammunition for implementation of the Government's policies. How on earth can it be said that it is out of order to discuss those policies, in the implementation of which the money provided under the clause is used?

The Chairman: It is out of order because "Erskine May" lays down that it is out of order. We are bound by the rules of the House. Do hon. Members wish me to repeat the rule? "Erskine May" states:
On the clauses dealing with the issue of money from the Consolidated Fund, subjects involving expenditure cannot be discussed".

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. "Erskine May"


does not rule out the possibility of discussing policy relating to the global sum. The £42 billion is not in a vacuum. It is spent on a number of items according to the priorities of the Government—and that means according to their policies.
On page 747 of Erskine May, in the section dealing with procedure in Committee on the Consolidated Fund, it is stated:
According to present practice the committee stage of such a bill is formal and normally passes without debate.
The Government came into office on a promise to scrutinise expenditure. The points of order concern the fact that the Government have clearly failed in their promise because Conservative Back-Benchers are not raising any points of scrutiny. It is being left to Labour Members to do so. The Minister has sat on the Front Bench for two hours like an inert sack in a linen suit—indeed, the linen looked like a sack. Have you, Mr. Weatherill, been notified by a Minister that the Government will elaborate on the scrutiny of public expenditure as a result of pressure from Labour Benches? It is an important point.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has now come into the Chamber. I assume that Ministers are not operating a shift system, because they did not envisage this shift taking place. I think that the Chief Secretary has joined us as a result of our strong representations. Will he give us a full explanation of the policies that lie behind the provision of £42 billion? Have the representations made in the debate resulted in the Government doing anything to exercise their promises to scrutinise public expenditure?

The Chairman: It is unfair for hon. Members to raise points of order about which the Chair can do nothing. I am bound by the rules of order that presently exist. There is to be an important debate on procedure, and on the scrutiny of moneys, on Thursday. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to raise his points in that important debate. I accept his point that that may be inadequate, but he should make his points then and not on this narrow clause stand part debate.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. The debate has

lasted for some time and there is a suspicion—which may be misconceived—that you are prepared to accept a closure motion. For that reason, and also because the debate has lasted for two hours, it would not be untoward if a closure motion was accepted.

Mr. Skinner: I am still waiting to speak.

Mr. Cryer: If you, Mr. Weatherill, have promised my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover that he could speak, that clarifies the position. Will a Minister speak? Have you received any indication of that?

The Chairman: I have not received any indication, and I do not need any indication. Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to move the closure?

Mr. Christopher Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I want to clarify one of your rulings, as it raises an important point. You said that we cannot discuss certain matters because "Erskine May" lays down that we cannot do so. The edition of "Erskine May" from which we are working predates the important precedent of 1977. The House moves from precedent to precedent, rather like the English common law. In taking a decision about what is relevant in a debate, surely it is your task, Mr. Weatherill—and I bow to your knowledge of the Chair as I am a newcomer to being a chairman—to read "Erskine May" together with the precedent of 1977. I suggest that you read the two sets of precedents together rather than separately. We move from precedent to precedent. We have not yet got the next edition of "Erskine May". It may be that the learned Clerk is already drafting the next edition. However, we need to take into consideration the precedents already established.
This is a very serious point. May I have it confirmed that it is not proper for the Chair, in making rulings, to rely wholly on the body of precedents established in "Erskine May"? I suggest that the Chair should have regard to precedents such as the 1977 one which have arisen in the period between the publication of editions of "Erskine May".

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) is a new but


excellent Chairman of Committees, and perhaps I can help him. I have before me the ruling of 28 July 1977, and it may help the House if I read it:
The Chairman then ruled that it was not possible on clause 1 to engage in a general discussion about the state of the economy, and the clause deals only with the issue of money out of the Consolidated Fund",
and he reiterated the ruling which I quoted a moment or two ago and, I think, eight or nine times previously in this debate.

Mr. Davis: I must say that I began to worry a little in the middle of that point of order when it sounded as though my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West were falling out about the earlier closure. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West advanced as his main reason for voting against clause 1 the fact that the Government had moved the closure on Second Reading. Therefore, it ill becomes my hon. Friends to talk about a closure now.

Mr. Skinner: That is right.

Mr. Davis: There is a precedent. Perhaps, Mr. Weatherill, I may refer you back to 1977. I have in mind not only the ruling on that occasion but another precedent established to which you will see reference made in column 1372 of Hansard for 28 July 1977. I invite your attention to the intervention made by the then Leader of the Opposition, which was followed by a statement by the Prime Minister.
I do not presume to suggest that the humble efforts of my hon. Friends and I are likely to produce a statement from the Prime Minister or from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I do not want any elaboration of the Government's policies on expenditure. But if there are other matters on which Opposition Members wish to have some elaboration and if someone on behalf of the Government wishes to communicate to the Committee either by a statement from the Dispatch Box or through you, Mr. Weatherillor—or, for that matter, through the usual channels—that there will be some movement in other matters in which the Opposition are extremely interested, it may lead to an earlier conclusion of this debate.
One of my hon. Friends referred to the failure of the Government to meet their responsibility to scrutinise public expenditure, to explain to their supporters in the country how they could allow to be approved on the nod a sum of £42,000 million, and how they squared that with all that they said in the past about the need to reduce public expenditure.

Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend will have noticed that sitting on the Treasury Bench is the Chief Secretary, and no one is more concerned about public expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman must be given credit for his concern about public expenditure. I am sure that if he were sitting on the Opposition Back Benches he would be extremely concerned to scrutinise the expenditure of £42,000 million which is involved here.
Is it not rather odd that the Chief Secretary seems reluctant to intervene in order to give us an indication of why such a vast sum of public money should be spent? It may be that the money should be spent. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and I might agree that more money should be spent. Has my hon. Friend any view on the Chief Secretary's reluctance to intervene?

Mr. Davis: At least the Chief Secretary is here. Earlier, we had a junior Treasury Minister on the Government Front Bench. It is a failure of responsibility on the part of Government supporters not to explain why they believe that the sum should be increased from £31,000 million to £42,000 million.
My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has been patient. He indicated to me some time ago that he was anxious to intervene and I have not yet given way to him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My hon. Friend deprecates himself too much as a humble Back Bencher. Is he aware that he is standing in the same place as did his distinguished predecessor who discussed the overall total of public expenditure on a number of occasions and suggested on one famous occasion that 61 per cent. of the nation's wealth going in public expenditure would be slavery, while 59 per cent. would be freedom? Only a little while afterwards, it was discovered by the Treasury that the percentages—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a tempting point, but the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) should not take it up.

Mr. Lyon: I am sorry, Mr. Weatherill—

The Chairman: Order. That matter is totally out of order. It has nothing to do with the clause.

Mr. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. That ruling is surely out of line with the indication that you gave at the beginning of the debate and the indication in "Erskine May". We are talking about the global total of public expenditure contained in clause 1. That amount has to be discussed in the context of the total amount of wealth in the country. There is no other way in which there can be any meaningful discussion of the subject.
If a figure of £42,000 million is regarded as being preferable to £31,000 million, that must be in relation to total GNP. The arguments can be produced only in relation to the total wealth of the country.
If we are talking about global amounts rather than amounts for individual services, we must be considering the global amount that the country can afford to pay in public expenditure rather than the the amount that it spends in private consumption. The balance is the only thing that we can talk about. There is no other meaning to the global figure.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may not have been in the Chamber when I ruled on this very matter about two hours ago. The House made a decision on 6 June about the sums that we are discussing and agreed that they should be granted out of the Consolidated Fund. It is, therefore, out of order for the Committee to attempt to go behind that decision of the House, which is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking to do. The hon. Member for Stechford is doing very well without all these interventions from his hon. Friends.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I wish to raise with you statements made by different occupants of the Chair. Two or three hours ago, you stated that these matters were approved in Tune. I asked whether, in the light of

the inflation in the intervening period, the figures could be correct. Mr. Crawshaw, your successor in the Chair, challenged me and said that the decision was taken not in June but on 31 July. You, Mr. Weatherill, have referred to June again. The House has a right to know which date is correct.

The Chairman: I apologise. I should have said 31 July. After a late night and with lots of papers on the Table in front of me, I simply picked up the wrong one.

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. With great respect, may I ask whether you are not departing from the impartiality that the Chair always shows when you said that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was doing very well? Some of us are extremely angry with him because he is doing the Government's job for them. If I succeed in catching your eye, I shall give him a bellyful. That is a matter between my hon. Friend and I. Is it not wrong, with all respect, for the Chair to intervene in a difference of that sort and to give the accolade of its approval to someone who is stimulating the strong disapproval of some of his hon. Friends?

The Chairman: I hope that I shall always be impartial in my dealings with the House. I was seeking to say that the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) are much more in order than any of the interventions with which he is being helped.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In pursuing my previous point of order, Mr. Weatherill, I am not seeking to be unfair to the Chair. I press this matter seriously. If the argument about the clause is within order, we are talking about a global sum. You have said, Mr. Weatherill, that because we passed the global sum last night, we cannot talk about the method by which it is raised, its allocation or its relationship to the total economy. If we are allowed to talk about clause stand part at all, we are talking, surely, in relation to that global figure, whether that global figure is worthwhile and the justification for that global figure. It must be seen in relation to the totality of the wealth of the country. There can be no other way to discuss whether £42,000 million is a


relevant figure unless you are to say that the only thing that can be discussed is whether it is an uprating for inflation in terms of the figure that prevailed last year. Surely, that figure, too, relates in some degree to the state of the economy.
I accept your ruling Mr. Weatherill, that we are not allowed to talk about the minutiae of detailed control of the economy and the Government's financial policy. Surely, however, if hon. Members are to discuss £42,000 million in any meaningful terms, we must be able to compare it with the global figure of the wealth of the economy and the difficulties that this will cause in relation to some other way of disposing of the wealth of the economy.

The Chairman: That has been the tenor of my rulings from the beginning. I am bound by the rules of the House. The rules say firmly that, in relation to the Consoldiated Fund, speeches will not be in order that are not directed towards the question of whether the clause stands part of the Bill. It is not in order to discuss detail. I am sorry and I fully understand the concern and, perhaps, the mystification of hon. Members, but it is a fact that only that particular matter can be discussed.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: You keep telling us, Mr. Weatherill, what we cannot discuss. I am not clear what we can discuss. In what sense can hon. Members talk about a global figure of public expenditure unless we can make some kind of comment? What can we say that is in order if it does not have some relationship to the total wealth of the country?

The Chairman: It is not for the Chair to tell hon. Members how to construct their speeches. It is the function of the Chair to call hon. Members to account if they stray or if they are out of order. That is what I am doing.

Mr. Davis: I should like to say, Mr. Weatherill, that I took in good part the compliment that you paid me that I had kept in order throughout my speech. It is a compliment that I shall treasure and tell my great grandchildren about. I am sorry to have earned the displeasure of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, but I am not going to

deal with him. I am going to deal with the issue of the £42,000 million.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most disappointed in my hon. Friend. He has always had not only my great regard but even my affection. I am disappointed that he should take it upon himself at great length today to advocate the policies of the Government rather than the policies of his own party. As I said in an intervention earlier, we have had a "gang of three" doing that; now he is a gang of one doing it. He must stop.

Mr. Davis: I must ask my hon. Friend to listen more closely to what I am saving. I realise that it is difficult for him because of the constant interruptions, but he will not have heard me advocate the Government's policies, because it would be out of order to advocate the policies either of the Government or of the Opposition. I am addressing myself solely and entirely to clause 1 and to the sum of £42,000 million contained in it.
I must defend myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover took umbrage at my jocular description of him as being moderate and kind in his treatment of the Government. I take great exception to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, whose affection I have always reciprocated, describing me as advocating the policies of the Government. What I have advocated is that the Opposition should not press their opposition to the Government to the point at which we vote against this sum of £42,000 million. That has been the whole purpose of my speech today.
This is a matter of balance, as I said. I recognise the strength of the feelings of some of my hon. Friends who object to that sum being voted in this way in total for the Government's use. But there is a serious point on which I want to press the Government. Although I will not take my opposition to the point of voting against clause 1, there is a matter on which a Treasury Minister should explain the effect of this sum of money.
There is precedent for raising this point, as you will know, Mr. Weatherill, because it was raised at lenth by Mr. Gaitskell in 1961. That is the inflationary, or perhaps deflationary, effect of this sum. My hon. Friend the Member for York was out of order when he referred to someone who used to sit in my seat. I am not quite clear whether he was referring to an hon.


Member who used to sit in the place that I now occupy in the Chamber or to my predecessor in my constituency.
However, if it was the latter, and he was referring to Mr. Roy Jenkins, it is true, I think, that Mr. Jenkins once commented critically on the amount of Government expenditure, the share that it was taking of the GNP and the effect that that would have on the economy. Thus, although my hon. Friend may have been slightly out of order, he was also slightly in order drawing attention to that aspect of this £42,000 million.
I do not know—it is idle to speculate—what opinion my predecessor may have about this sum of money. I can only reassure my hon. Friends—including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow—that, on this point as on many others, I disagree with Mr. Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Dubs: Would my hon. Friend direct his attention to another aspect of this sum of £42,000 million? That is the secrecy which surrounds it. I appreciate that we are not allowed to discuss in detail the component elements of that sum, but is he aware that our responsibility to scrutinise this sum is made much more difficult because the Government Departments concerned, which have made decisions about these sums, are being totally secretive about their intentions and that we cannot make a judgment about the total sum because we cannot make a sensible judgment about the component parts?
Would my hon. Friend comment therefore on the tendency of Departments and Ministers to be far too secretive about their proposals, so that we cannot do our job as Members of Parliament in scrutinising public expenditure?

Mr. Davis: I might agree with my hon. Friend if the clause said simply that
The Treasury may issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom and apply towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st March 1981 a sum at their discretion.

But that is not the wording of the Bill. The Bill says that the sum is £41,601 million and more. So it is not secret. The Government put in the total. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the detail provided. It is not totally secret. There is detail which we cannot discuss now. The detail is contained in schedules (A) and (B) attached to the Bill.

No doubt when we reach that point in our Committee stage there will be a possibility of discussing in detail some of those sums of money. I am not quite sure how far we shall be able to go at that stage. I shall take your advice, Mr. Weatherill, on that matter at that point in time. I am not asking you to advise me now, because I think that it is wrong to do as Conservative Members did in 1977—to seek to delay the Committee's proceedings by raising at the very beginning points of order lasting an hour about what they would or would not be allowed to discuss.

We shall have to suck it and see—a well known phrase used by the Treasury, as many of my hon. Friends know. We have present the "Suck it and see Minister" who is to reply. I think that the Chief Secretary was the "Suck it and see Minister"—no, he is shaking his head. It was the Financial Secretary who said that we should suck it and see.

Mr. Cryer: Perhaps I may confirm to my hon. Friend, just before he starts on the main body of his speech—I hope that he is coming to the end of the preliminary part—that it was the Financial Secretary, the man in the linen suit, who has developed this sophisticated and complex philosophy of the Government enshrined in the phrase "Suck it and see".

Mr. Davis: I am sorry that I fell into the trap of using that phrase.

Mr. Jopling: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 96.

Division No. 444]
AYES
[1.33 pm


Aitken, Jonathan
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John


Ancratn, Michael
Bell, Sir Ronald
Blackburn, John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bendall, Vivian
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Benyon, w. (Buckingham)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Bevan, David Gilroy
Bright, Graham


Banks, Robert
Biffen, Rt Hon John
Brinton, Tim




Brittan, Leon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Pollock, Alexander


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hooson, Tom
Porter, George


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Price, Sir David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prior, Rt Hon James


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rathbone, Tim


Buck, Antony
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Rhodes James, Robert


Budgen, Nick
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bulmer, Esmond
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Malcolm


Butcher, John
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Kilfedder, James A.
Rost, Peter


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
King, Rt Hon Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Channon, Paul
Lang, Ian
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Lawson, Nigel
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Cope, John
Lee, John
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Corrie, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills]


Costain, Sir Albert
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Silvester, Fred


Cranborne, Viscount
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Luce, Richard
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton)


Dorrell, Stephen
Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Dover, Denshore
MacGregor, John
Squire, Robin


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Stainton, Keith


Durant, Tony
Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Eggar, Timothy
Major, John
Stanley, John


Elliott, Sir William
Marlow, Tony
Stevens, Martin


Eyre, Reginald
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fairgrieve, Russell
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Mates, Michael
Thompson, Donald


Fell, Anthony
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Thornton, Malcolm


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick
Trippler, David


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Viggers, Peter


Fry, Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Waddington, David


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wakeham, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Goodlad, Alastair
Monro, Hector
Waker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Gow, Ian
Moore, John
Waller, Gary


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Ward, John


Gray, Hamish
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mudd, David
Wheeler, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher
Whitney, Raymond


Haselhurst, Alan
Myles, David
Wickenden, Keith


Hawkins, Paul
Neale, Gerrard
Wiggin, Jerrry


Hawksley, Warren
Neubert, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Hayhoe, Barney
Newton, Tony
Wolfson, Mark


Heddle, John
Normanton, Tom
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Henderson, Barry
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Hill, James
Pawsey, James
Mr. Anthony Berry.




NOES


Allaun, Flank
English, Michael
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Alton, David
Evans, John (Newton)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester south)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fitt, Gerard
Mikardo, Ian


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Freud, Clement
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Graham, Ted
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Mitchll, R. C. (Solon, Itchen)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hardy, Peter
Parker, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Harrison, Rt Hon Water
Pavitt, Laurie


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Haynes, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Carmichael, Neil
Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Clark, Dr. David (South Shields)
Homewood, William
Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hooley, Frank
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint
Sandelson, Neville


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sheerman, Barry


Cryer, Bob
Kerr, Russell
Short, Mrs Renée


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Kinnock, Neil
Silverman, Julius


Deakins, Eric
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Skinner, Dennis


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Litherland, Robert
Spearing, Nigel


Dewar, Donald
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stallard, A. W.


Dormand, Jack
McNally, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin
Straw, Jack


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Bob
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
McWilliam, John
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Marks, Kenneth
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)







Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Watkins, David
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Welsh, Michael
Woolmer, Kenneth
Mr. James Hamilton and


Whitehead, Phillip
Wright, Sheila
Mr. James Tinn.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of Mr. Weatherill.

Division No. 445]
AYES
[1.45 pm


Adley, Robert
Gow, Ian
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Alton, David
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Ancram, Michael
Gray, Hamish
Pawsey, James


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Pollock, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Porter, George


Banks, Robert
Haselhurst, Alan
Price, Sir David


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, Rt Hon James


Beith, A J.
Hawksley, Warren
Proctor, K. Harvey


Bendall, Vivian
Hayhoe, Barney
Rhodes James, Robert


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Heddle, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Berry, Hon Anthony
Henderson, Barry
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hicks, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hill, James
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Blackburn, John
Hooson, Tom
Rost, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint
Royle, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bright, Graham
Hurd, Hon Douglas
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Brinton, Tim
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Brittan, Leon
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge-Br'hills>


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Silvester, Fred


Brooke, Hon Peter
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sims, Roger


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kershaw, Anthony
Smith, Dudley (War, and Leam'ton>


Browne, John (Winchester)
Kilfedder, James A.
Speller, Tony


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
King, Rt Hon Tom
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Buck, Antony
Lang, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Budgen, Nick
Lawson, Nigel
Squire, Robin


Bulmer, Esmond
Le Merchant, Spencer
Stainton, Keith


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stevens, Martin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Luce, Richard
Stradling Thomas, J.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Lyell, Nicholas
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S).


Chapman, Sydney
Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Donald


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
McNair-wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Thornton, Malcolm


Cope, John
Madel, David
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)


Corrie, John
Major, John
Trippier, David


Costain, Sir Albert
Marlow, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Cranborne, Viscount
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Viggers, Peter


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Mates, Michael
Waddington, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Dover, Denshore
Mayhew, Patrick
Walker, Bill (Perth &amp; E Perthshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Durant, Tony
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Ward, John


Eggar, Timothy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd &amp; Stev'nage)


Elliott, Sir William
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Whitney, Raymond


Fairgrieve, Russell
Moore, John
Wickenden, Keith


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Wiggin, Jerrry


Fell, Anthony
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mudd, David
Wolfson, Mark


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Murphy, Christopher
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Myles, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Neale, Gerrard



Freud, Clement
Neubert, Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fry, Peter
Normanton, Tom
Mr. John MacGregor and


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Mr. Tony Newton.


Garel-Jones, Tristan






NOES



Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Ian Mikardo and




Mr. Alfred Dubs.

Question accordingly agreed to.

The Chairman: Order. I must put the Question on clause 1 stand part before I take points of order.

Question put accordingly, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 171, Noes 1.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am concerned that the closure was moved when only two hon. Members had had the opportunity of putting their arguments. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) was trying to persuade us why we should vote for clause 1. Some of us were by no means persuaded that we should do so. My hon. Friend did his best to explain why we should vote for the clause. It seems unfortunate, to say the least, that my hon. Friend, because of the action of the Government Chief Whip, did not have the opportunity of pursuing his argument.
I believe that on such an important matter, involving nearly £42,000 million, there should be a proper opportunity to debate the matter. I do not propose to go into the rights or wrongs of the procedure on which there were points of order earlier, because that would be wrong. This is a genuine point of order. I believe that it was wrong of the Government Chief Whip to move the closure when only two hon. Members had spoken and, moreover, when my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford had not completed his argument. I hope that there will be a proper opportunity to debate the Bill and that the Government will not be impatient to move the closure and make a mockery of our procedure. I hope that you will rule accordingly.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order. Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that a few hours ago, when we were listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) outlining the reasons why we should vote in the way that he was recommending, you indicated, when I was making some interventions, that I would get a chance to put forward my long—or short—arguments whether or not clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is misled. I said that the hon. Gentleman might be able to present a certain argument on Thursday, not today.

Mr. Skinner: My other point of order concerns another matter, which needs great clarification. At the end of every day, there is an Adjournment debate. An Adjournment debate takes place for the last half-hour. Sometimes it can be longer than that, if the business of the House collapses earlier. I note that the Clerk of

the House is whispering in your ear to put you wise on everything. I have brought all the relevant documents in order that we may get the position properly clarified.
On 16 November 1979 the matter of the Adjournment arose out of an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to get a second Adjournment debate when the business was in a state of collapse. The House was finishing the Report stage of a Bill before 10 o'clock. The Government were in a state of collapse, as they have been today, as evidenced by the way in which they lost control of the proceedings. On that occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian said that he wanted an Adjournment debate. A common feature of our procedure is that second, and possibly third, Adjournment debates are agreed when that position arises. As a result, Mr. Speaker came into the matter on several occasions, and finally at column 1661—

The Chairman: Order. It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to raise a point of order about the Adjournment in the middle of proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. I shall take the points of order relating to the Adjournment when the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill are finished. I should like to rule on the first point of order.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

2 pm

The Chairman: Order. It is a difficult judgment to make whether or not to accept the closure motion. My feeling was that, although only two hon. Members had spoken, one of them for well over two hours, the interventions that had taken place—I think that hon. Members who are present will fully acknowledge this—were more in the nature of speeches than interventions.

Mr. Skinner: On the question of the Adjournment, Mr. Weatherill, I think that we may be at cross-purposes. I do not want to be called out today. It has been a better day for the Opposition than many days recently, and we should not have a big row. I was trying to explain that as the occupant of the Chair you will no doubt be interested in what Mr. Speaker said on 16 November 1979 regarding Adjournment debates.

The Chairman: I would be interested, but not now. I have no jurisdiction over Adjournment debates. That is entirely a matter for Mr. Speaker. I remind the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that at present we are in Committee. Therefore, the point that he raises is not a question that we can discuss now.

Mr. Skinner: I must insist, Mr. Weatherill.

The Chairman: Order. I shall not take any further points of order relating to the Adjournment.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Your ruling a moment ago that you accepted the closure motion because my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) had spoken for about two and a half hours is a serious ruling about the capacity of hon. Members to put their case fairly. You will recollect that in the nineteenth century Mr. Gladstone, after he resigned as Prime Minister, came to the House to make a speech on a matter that he considered of such overwhelming importance that he abandoned the leadership of the Liberal Party—a thing that he was wise to do—in order to raise it. The issue related to the Welsh disestablishment measure, and he spoke for five and a half hours on that occasion. Mr. Speaker at the time did not interpose in that speech in order to indicate that it was an inapproprate thing to do, or that it was in any way out of order. My hon. Friend spoke only for two and a half hours.
It therefore seems that in exercising your discretion to accept the closure motion, Mr. Weatherill, you were at any rate going against the precedents over the years in saying that there had been adequate discussion, because one hon. Member, and only one, had spoken for two and a half hours. My hon. Friend prevented me from getting in in order to explain more fully my point about Mr. Roy Jenkins. He also prevented the Chief Secretary to the Treasury from explaining much more fully the whole issue of whether the sum allocated in clause 1 ought ever to have been allocated in the first place. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that anything like £42,000 million ought to have been allocated. He was actually overruled by the wets in the Cabinet. It was,

therefore, important that he should put his point of view, perhaps at three and a half hours length, in order that we could fully understand what his point of view was.
Surely the point of order is that hon. Members are entitled to speak for as long as they wish, unless we use the 10-minute rule which applies in Second Reading debates. Surely it cannot be an adequate answer to suggest that the matter has been fully discussed when only one hon. Member has spoken, albeit for rather longer than is our wont now, because other hon. Members are not then entitled to put their point of view.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Chairman: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I did not decide whether we should move on to the next clause. I put that matter to the Committee, and the Committee decided it. Had the Committee felt that it had not had adequate time to discuss the matter, no doubt it would have come to a different decision. My function is to ensure that when we are debating a clause we remain in order. That is what I was seeking to ensure. I repeat that in my judgment we had had an adequate debate on the clause.

Mr. Mikardo: You referred to the exercise of your judgment, Mr. Weatherill, in accepting the motion for the closure. In an earlier observation you drew attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) had spoken for a very long time. I put it to you that it is precisely because he had spoken for a very long time that it was not altogether appropriate, if I may suggest it, that the debate should have been brought to an end then.
What has happened is that we have had two speeches—one of about 15 or 20 minutes on one side of the argument and one of more than two hours on the other side of the argument. That being so, I should have thought that there was a reasonable case for calling at least one other person to speak against the motion.

The Chairman: Order. It will be well within the recollection of the Committee that the interventions were to a large extent, if not wholly, out of order. I told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) that his speech


to a large extent was in order, and I paid tribute to him for that. In my judgment, the substance of the clause had been adequately discussed, and I am not prepared now to have a debate on the question whether I was right or wrong to make that decision. If the House thinks that I was wrong, it has its own sanctions.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Adjournment debates, generally speaking, take place after 10 pm. This is a very important point of order, Mr. Weatherill, and I should like you to listen to the point of order that I am about to make.
The Adjournment debate that was scheduled for today was withdrawn, and two of my hon. Friends who are present today went to the Table Office and tried to get a replacement Adjournment debate—a very decent and honourable thing to do. They were told that the ruling of 16 November 1979 related to 8 pm.
What we have to ask ourselves is why Mr. Speaker said 8 pm. It was, as he explained in his remarks to the House, because he wanted the Minister who was to reply to the Adjournment debate to have sufficient time to answer the debate. That is fair. He made that point. I shall not read it. I do not want to take up the time of the Committee by doing so. [Interruption.] No, I think that at this point you, Mr. Weatherill, and I have a clear understanding about the matter.
Mr. Speaker made clear that the matter of concern was the time element. No Minister ought to be placed in the predicament of not being available and not having the necessary equipment to answer the Adjournment debate.
However, on the Consolidated Fund Bill we meet a different position altogether, because the Bill always lasts a long time—not as long as this time but certainly a long time.
Strictly speaking, the ruling about 8 pm means that no one can get an Adjournment debate—if the one on the Order Paper collapses or is withdrawn—after 8 pm. But I remind you, Mr. Weatherill, that, as I told the Committee about four hours ago, at 8 pm yesterday we were not yet discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill. We were still dis

cussing the question of the Adjournment of the House.
When my hon. Friend withdrew his Adjournment debate there was plenty of time available for Ministers to obtain all the necessary research information and briefs to answer another Adjournment debate. When my two hon. Friends went to the Table Office there were many hours left before the end of the debate. It is an issue that needs serious consideration.

The Chairman: It may need serious consideration. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman will find another opportunity for that consideration to be brought to bear. This is not the correct opportunity. The granting of Adjournment debates is within the discretion of Mr. Speaker:and not for me. As I have already said, we are in Committee. This is not the appropriate moment to consider Adjournment debates. That is an issue that must be considered at some other time.

Mr. Jim Marshall: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It is related to the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is that in order?

Mr. Marshall: I wish that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has been in the Chamber for only a short time, would be quiet. He is more vociferous now than when the Committee was considering whether clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.
Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member's point of order is concerned with Adjournment debates, let me make it clear that I am not taking any further points of order on that subject. It is not a matter with which I can deal.

Mr. Cryer: At an earlier stage, Mr. Weatherill, when I was raising a point of order, I mentioned the Closure. I seek your guidance and clarification. When I mentioned the Closure, we all understood that the Government Chief Whip would try to make some nefarious move to interrupt the flow of debate. I was staggered when that move was made


while my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis), was on his feet and in the middle of his speech.
It is true that my hon. Friend's speech had been the subject of a number of interventions, but surely it is contrary to the usual practice to accept the Closure when an hon. Member is on his feet. It may be that you did not notice that, Mr. Weatherill. I make no criticism of the Chair, because to say the least, you have had a difficult few hours. However, it is important that an hon. Member should be allowed to conclude his speech while he is on his feet. It is a precedent that should clearly be nailed, so that the Closure is not moved in such a way in future. If that is not done, hon. Members who are still speaking will be gagged by the attitude of the Government Chief Whip.

The Chairman: I do not think that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Stetchford (Mr. Davis) felt that he was being gagged. I felt on a number of occasions that the hon. Gentleman had virtually completed his speech, when he was spurred on by interventions. I do not think that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) need be concerned about gagging. There are many other opportunities on clauses 2, 3 and 4.

Clause 2

APPROPRIATION OF SUMS VOTED FOR SUPPLY SERVICES

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Question is, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Neil Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I say with reluctance that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) inadvertently misled the Committee when making his most recent point of order. He gave the impression that two Opposition Members had been to the Table Office to make representations and to secure an Adjournment debate. That was not so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) went to

the Table Office. I followed a different course. It was one that was dictated by courtesy. I telephoned the Department of Education and Science to try to secure the Minister's agreement to my raising the issue of school and university teachers' pay and the abolition of the Clegg commission. I was informed that the Secretary of State was not in a position to say anything. I say that only for the sake of the record. I regret what took place, because I cannot now ask the Secretary of State whether teachers should write to him to thank him for winning in Cabinet, or to the Chief Whip for making such a mess of the business this week.

Mr. Mikardo: I rise to speak on the Question, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill. The Chair indicated earlier, Mr. Godman Irvine, that we would be able to have a substantially wider debate on this clause than was possible on clause 1. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Godman Irvine): Order. It would be convenient if I were able to hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has already raised a point of order.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Mikardo: I rose to speak on the Question, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That indicates how important it is for the Chair to be able to hear what is being said.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is speaking on clause 2 and wishes to make a few brief points. I wish to raise a point of order about the last Division. Sometimes people end up by voting in both Lobbies. Until recently that practice did not worry Mr. Speaker very much, but a couple of years ago


Mr. Speaker said that that practice was to be deprecated. People used to take part in "positive abstention". When they were not sure what to do, they voted twice. During the last Division the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who had not taken part in the debate for many hours, and who has disappeared again, voted twice—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman had to go through two Lobbies. However, it is too late to raise that matter now. We are discussing clause 2 stand part.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It has also been brought to my attention—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already given a ruling on the point of of order.

Mr. Skinner: The ruling does not apply. It has been brought to my attention that the confused hon. Member for Colne Valley went into both Lobbies but became even more confused and came out again.

Mr. Mikardo: I began my observations, Mr. Bonner Pink—[Interruption.] I apologise profusely, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am sorry. I have spent so much time under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink) during the discussions on a notorious Private Member's Bill that I have, to my great regret, made a mistake of identification.
I began my observations by saying that I would address myself to the Question That clause 2 stand part of the Bill. In an earlier ruling, it was said that this debate could go wider than the debate on clause 1 stand part. Indeed, the Chair specifically informed us that as the clause is headed—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Perhaps I might be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. This debate must concentrate on the principle of appropriation, and nothing else. The money must be spent as the House of Commons decreed.

Mr. Mikardo: That is just the point that I was about to make. The ruling given was to the effect that we could, and should, discuss appropriation. Indeed, the clause is headed "Appropriation

of Grants". In moving from clause 1 to clause 2, we move up a notch or two in the escalation of astronomical sums. In clause 1 we were debating a mere £41,601,455,200.

Mr. Skinner: How much?

Mr. Mikardo: In clause 2 we are debating £67,793,421,250—and 4p.
The Minister, who has sat in the Chamber since the beginning of the Committee stage, has remained silent, in spite of what must have been powerful temptations. I hope that he will intervene in the debate, because I am desperately anxious to know what the 4p is for. I want to know whether he intends to maintain his sphinx-like proclivities.

Mr. Skinner: May I help my hon. Friend? I have heard the Minister whispering. If I understand the gist of it, the 4p is due to corporation tax.

Mr. Mikardo: I was saying that if the Minister can unblock that which at the moment is inhibiting any vibration of his vocal chords, I hope that he will not do it in respect of anything else, but will tell us what the fourpennyworth is. I have not worked out what percentage 4p is of £67 billion, but clearly it must be an item.
One thing that has always puzzled me in respect of appropriation is why some of the Votes are rounded off to an extent which indicates that they have not been properly considered, and others are worked out in meticulous detail, involving pennies.
An example is Class II, Vote 8:
For Her Majesty's foreign and other secret services.
That means the spies. I refer to page 10, schedule (B).—part 4, Class II, Vote 8. Precisely £4 million is provided for
Her Majesty's foreign and other secret services.
I do not believe that for a minute. I do not believe that the salaries of a number of people and all their James Bond travelling allowances, their revolvers and their secret cameras, which are made to look like cigarette lighters—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the only question under consideration is whether the Treasury shall be compelled to appropriate the total sum in a certain


way. It is impossible to deal with single items.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There is no point of order at the moment.

Mr. Cryer: We had an extensive discussion about clause 1 when this question was raised. The other two Chairmen indicated that the debate on clause 2 could go wider than the debate on clause 1.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Whatever may have happened in the past, the only question now for the Committee to decide is whether the Treasury is compelled to appropriate the total sum of money in a certain way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It was ruled earlier that we could debate only the overall total under clause 1, and that we should apply ourselves to the task of discussing appropriation generally under clause 2. The Chairman said that the point that I wished to raise, namely, the way in which the sum of money would be appropriated—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is confirming what I said. The question is confined to the appropriation of the total sum of money in a certain way.

Mr. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. In deciding how to appropriate the £42 billion allocated under clause 1, surely we are entitled to say that the appropriation—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That matter has been decided. It is a question whether the Committee now appropriates the money in the way that has been decided.

Mr. Lyon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Should it be appropriated in the way indicated in the schedule? My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) is arguing that a sum of money allocated to the Foreign Service for the operations of the Secret Service should not be so allocated but should be put into housing in Bethnal Green and Bow.

Mr. Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I specifically raised a point of order with one of your predecessors about whether a debate could arise on departmental spending in a global context. Your predecessor clearly said that it could not be raised under clause 1, but that it could be raised under clause 2.

The First Deputy Chairman: The answer to that remark is "No".

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I have listened to your explanation. With respect, it seems to go against something that happened immediately prior to your ruling. I understand that you have now said that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) cannot develop his argument. Various hon. Members have raised points of order. You said that we could not go into detail. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend. I heard him going into great detail about how 4p would be spent, and the way in which it was being spent. He was not called to order. I assumed that that argument could be developed. I hope that my hon. Friend will further explain the 4p.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Committee to accept that we are discussing whether we appropriate the total sum of money in the way that has been decided.

Mr. Hooley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. I am trying to understand your ruling in the light of the context of the Bill, which states that the money should be appropriated
for the services and purposes expressed in Schedule (B) annexed hereto".
From my Back Bencher's point of view, I believe that because the Bill refers explicitly to the services and purposes expressed in schedule (B) it would be in order to raise questions on and to debate those services and purposes. While I accept that that deals with an appropriation, it specifies that the appropriation shall be in the terms covered by schedule (B). I am, therefore, at a loss to understand how the assurance given by the Chair earlier this morning that we could go into detail can now be overridden, given the context of the clause.

The First Deputy Chairman: We cannot discuss the details of the schedules. We can debate only the principle of the appropriation. The debate can be broader than clause 1, but it is still narrow.

Mr. Mikardo: With respect, Mr. God-man Irvine, if I had been allowed to finish my sentence, we might have been saved this trouble. I was not discussing the merits of a particular Vote. I was simply making a broad point. I recapitulate: the argument—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. It is already clear that we have lost today's business. Would it not be useful if the Leader of the House were to indicate his intentions so that we may then proceed?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Mikardo: I was arguing, and will argue if I am allowed to do so, that we are discussing the appropriation under clause 2, which covers schedule (B), as will be seen. Schedule (B) lacks credibility. Some votes are calculated to the last penny. The 4p—

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Hon. Members cannot hear what is being said.

Mr. Mikardo: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I would prefer not to have to shout. It is difficult for hon. Members to make their points when other well-rested hon. Members, who have come into the Chamber at lunch time in very high spirits, having doubtless stopped at one or two places of refreshment on the way, and having made no positive contribution to our debate, are now trying to make negative points. But we are getting used to public school hooligans.
I repeat that I refer to the sharp contrast in this global rounding-up. Vote 8 comprises salaries, travelling allowances and many items of equipment and, lo land behold, all those separate items amount to £4 million exactly—not to £3·999 million, but to £4 million exactly, and, by contrast, this funny old 4p is included in schedule (A). If we examine schedule (A), it will be seen that the 4p does not cover one single item—it covers 3p on one Vote and 1p on another.
The Minister is inarticulate, but he is not immobile. I thought for a moment that he was not merely doomed to Trappist silence, but that he was also fossilised. However, he has nodded. He is therefore indicating concurrence with the discovery of my researches that the 4p is made up of 3p and a penny. May I now beg him, therefore, to carry movement into speech and tell us what the 3p is and what the penny is, by contrast with this rounding-up? I suspect that the rounding-up is a cover for a figure which, if it were properly set out, would be very much larger.
It is this sort of strange accountng practice that we have got used to from the Treasury under all sorts of Governments over many years—indeed, centuries—and that is beginning to bring our processes of monitoring public expenditure into doubt, if not into disrepute.
Before we leave this Bill, I hope that we shall hear from the Financial Secretary, who is euphemistically described as being in charge of it but who, as far as I can see, could not take charge of the skin off a rice pudding, so little has he contributed to our proceedings.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Has my hon. Friend considered schedule (B), the appropriation accounts, which we are discussing at the moment.

The First Deputy Chairman: Whether the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) has or has not considered it is not relevant to clause 2. It might be of assistance to the Committee if I put the Question on clause 2.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Mikardo: I had not finished.

Mr. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. You said that the appropriation of grants was not relevant to the debate on clause 2. However, clause 2 refers to those services which are deemed to be appropriated
as from the date of the passing of the Acts mentioned in … Schedule (A), for the services and purposes expressed in Schedule (B) annexed hereto.
Therefore to consider schedule (B) is one of the things that we can do. Surely your ruling was in error.

The First Deputy Chairman: The scope of debate on a Consolidated Fund Bill is extremely narrow. We are now dealing with clause 2, and I think that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow had finished what he had to say.

Mr. Mikardo: You are nearly right, Mr. Godman Irvine. I had not finished, but I am very near to finishing. I shall finish because I am desperately anxious to make way for the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Has not the Leader of the House some kind of obligation to give us a statement of Government business? He is sitting there sulking, and I feel that he ought to give the Committee some indication of future Government business.

The First Deputy Chairman: I suspect that the Leader of the House has little to contribute to the debate on clause 2. However, hon. Members are anxious to hear if he has anything else to contribute, and I suggest to the Committee that it would be desirable if I were to put the Question, That clause 2 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I am discussing the subject dealt with in clause 2, the services and proposes expressed in schedule (B) annexed thereto. I am not in any way indicating the nature of those services. Nor am I talking about the appropriation of services. I am talking about the figure which is to be found at the bottom under the grand total. That indicates a figure of £6,138,547,782.24. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow did not have his attention drawn to the 24p, but the significant factor of that grand total is that the 24p purports to be part of the total of the columns above it. In fact, there are no pence in any of the pence columns above. The Treasury did its sums and added up a column of noughts and made a total of 24.

Mr. Mikardo: Having criticised the Treasury when it was wrong, I must defend it when it is right. It is the Minister's job, but he will not do it. I do not know what he is drawing his wages for. I must do his job for him. If my hon. Friend looks at the summary on page 5 he will see that the 4p arises for the service of the year ended 31 March 1979.

That is why it is not included under the service of the year ended 31 March 1980.

Mr. Lyon: I was talking about the 24p which arises under part 2 (Civil (Excesses). The position is set out on page 7 where a number of items are indicated in precise figures.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has doubtless heard me say that we can deal only with the principle. He is not dealing with that and therefore he is out of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules (A), (B) and (C) agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.

NORTH OF SCOTLAND HYDRO-ELECTRIC BOARD

That the draft North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Compensation for Smelter Deficits) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 9th July, be approved.

COMPANIES

That the draft Companies (Directors' Report) (Employment of Disabled Persons) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

INCOME TAX

That the draft Income Tax (Construction Operations) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 4th July, be approved.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 8) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.

That the draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 17th July, be approved.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Question agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Le Marchant.]

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is, That this House do now adjourn.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): rose—

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ted Graham: The motion has been moved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have the advantage that I have not been in the Chamber. I gather that something has upset someone. Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not strictly necessary, under our rules of procedure, to have a business statement, but it may be for the convenience of the House that hon. Members should know the Government's intention in relation to—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am listening to a point of order. I have not adjourned.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am speaking on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is the intention of the Government to set down for tomorrow the business that was set down for today, in addition to the business for tomorrow.

Hon. Members: Out out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not have chanting in this place. Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Michael Foot: It is true, Mr. Speaker, that you were out of the House when these incidents happened, but from the point of view of good order in the House, the position is clear. The motion was moved for the Adjournment of the House. The motion has been carried. Either we proceed on that basis or I do not know how we would proceed. However, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House rose on a point of order to say that he wished to give to the House an indication of business for tomorrow.
It is my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, especially in the light of what occurred earlier, that any announcement about future business should be made at the beginning of tomorrow's business. That would be the normal proceeding. I suggest that the Leader of the House and the Government should come forward in the normal manner at the beginning of tomorrow's proceedings and make a statement then about the future business of the House.
It would not be in order, on a point of order, for the Leader of the House to make a statement about tomorrow's business. I therefore urge most strongly that in these circumstances the best course for the House is to stick to its normal rules. The Government will then have time to make up their minds what they wish to propose to the House in the normal way at the beginning of tomorrow's business.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the point of order that I originally raised with you, Mr. Speaker. There is no need for the Government to have more time to consider the matter. We have made up our mind. We shall put down this business tomorrow.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That this House do now adjourn.
As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".

Hon. Members: Aye.

Mr. Speaker: To the contrary, "No".

Hon. Members: No. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am also the recipient of advice, and the advice is that hon. Members cannot vote now.

Mr. Walter Harrison: We are on the Adjournment.

Mr. Michael Mates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In that case, is it not in order for an hon. Member to address the House for 30 minutes on the Adjournment? [Interruption.]

Mr. St. John-Stevas: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is so—but it is also in my power to say that the House stands adjourned, and I think that that is the best thing that I can do. The House now stands adjourned.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Three o'clock on Tuesday afternoon.